KillerDiller

“open source” was not a term, much less an industry term, before the OSI founders came up with it.

Source: I was in the industry and Free Software movement at the time.

More background: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...

This could be a crucial argument in that it distinguishes between the essential freedom of device owners to decide what software to run, and the freedom of device manufacturers to decide which apps to sell in their stores and at what terms (still subject to anti-trust laws).

Unfortunately, the $99 annual fee per developer account nullifies any possible mass-market sideloading possibilities. (Imagine what could happen if sideloading apps from source was free just highly impractical, and HEY turned their rage into a free Apple developer account management & sideloading SaaS offering.)

So close and yet so far. You need to read section 69b of the German copyright code (§69b UrhG) asap.

It's actually way simpler than that: the owners of a company facing crisis have the choice between providing it with additional liquidity or putting its future (and thus their stake) at risk. This is the one core manifestation of the risk they are bearing, and for which they allegedly deserve the dividends in the first place.

Getting a dividend for last year's performance is the opposite of providing liquidity. If they get the cash because it was scheduled, they need to immediately put it back. If they take the cash and run, they failed to act in their own interest, and do not deserve to have their investment protected.

Problem with implants is that they cause compressive stress to the bone, which causes bone to deteriorate. Teeth are held by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpey%27s_fibres. This converts the forces acting on the tooth to tensile stress on the bone, which causes it to grow more dense.

The lack of budget is easily fixed when mature financial planning (which is completely normal for non-IT resources) and internalization of externalities is applied by requiring a working and budgeted lifecycle for every newly established IT system.

Forced internalization of externalities and transparency of risk (by vendors establishing both a firm lifecycle and a patching regime) provide the right incentives to make that happen.

In other words, the world of networked devices is a world of constant change. It must rid itself of those not fit for that change. People can run XP until the sun burns out, they just can't connect it to anything that's not theirs.

Providers are not always transparent about whether CPU is dedicated or shared (and what exactly shared means). Most importantly, this distinction generally gets lost when people compare offerings of different providers, and so they end up comparing apples and oranges.

Next, when the actual "share" of a shared core is completely undefined, the idea that net performance can be improved by adding more of these shares becomes at least questionable.

Last but not least, one important takeaway from the speculative execution flaws is that a security boundary between software running on the same hyperthread is an indefensible position due to unmitigateable flaws.

Worse, if you run the numbers, at DO you get 1 dedicated core (2 threads) with 8G RAM for $60, but 4 "normal" cores with same RAM for $40. Only possible conclusion is that "normal" cores are less than a full thread.

VMs from these providers are always shared cores (in the affordable price tier at least). So if you think you need seven 4-core VMs, either you'll end up needing much more, because you're not getting dedicated cores, or you'll end up needing fewer resources, because you're underestimating the power you'll get from dedicated cores. That said, my advice is to leave the flexibility of cloud for those with flexibility of budget and just get a dedicated Xeon server from Hetzner at hetzner.de/sb. Four cores / eight threads with 2 HDDs go from 29€, and with SSDs from 34€ (at the moment). That kind of box has a lot of horsepower to offer, and I'm sure you'll find a way to make that work for your project.

You are fully correct, and it is only a complaint in regard to the submission originally titling UBE as an "Alpine alternative".

Sure, but then why stop there and not just go

> FROM centos:8

What a sham. Very few packages are available in the yum repos from the UBI unless one is a RH customer. This will be a nonstarter unless anyone can install any package from the RHEL collection by default.

"Ketamine lifts depression via a byproduct of its metabolism" <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160504141131.h...

The point here I think is that "nobody" seriously believes in container isolation purely through namespacing. It's sufficient for some scenarios, but we can expect the hypercontainer-based OCI runtime to gain much more momentum. It's only logical that Microsoft will skip namespacing entirely and go straight to a unified Windows/Linux container runtime based on their Hyper-V investment. Hyper-V isolation has been the only production-approved runtime for Windows containers already, and it's how Azure Container Instances works under the hood (that's my understanding at least).

As a hardcore qmail (and qmail-ldap) user back in the days, I can confirm that this is all accurate and correct.

You absolutely can access files from the Windows filesystems easily. The C: drive is mounted at /mnt/c by default. The ability to launch native Windows programs from within WSL is being delivered as part of the next update and is available on Insider builds now.

"Bright Future" by Somnium.

Or just press Enter right away / use the (x) in the upper right of the dialog and keep closing the tab. It will go away eventually.

Chrome isn’t perfect here, but lightyears ahead of the mess that Firefox makes.