That said, too many projects believe they have special needs, when they're better served just using e.g. apr in the first place.
832 karma · joined January 12, 2015
That said, too many projects believe they have special needs, when they're better served just using e.g. apr in the first place.
I suspect that's because your client's spending their company's money, and it made no difference if the rate were cheaper. They'd rather sign the deal quickly then GTFO. Challenging Joe would only prolong the process.
Perhaps prohibiting access to user-space except GDB would be a reasonable compromise. Also, debug registers are not unique to x86: most (all?) CPU architectures have them. So calling it a "fad [...] Intel cpu feature" is a bit unfair.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXK03FHVsHk&t=26
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9WGibEF04&t=266
[2] My company's COVID-19 response so far is excellent, but it doesn't help when (seemly) no one else gives a crap.
Ha! I'm immediately thrown off by the double-space-after-period default. Fortunately that can be changed.
[0] https://archive.org/details/msdos_Mavis_Beacon_Teaches_Typin...
Works fine for me. But I also run it in a dedicated full-fat profile I use only for Reddit, because I'm paranoid.
However, I've also had plenty of nightmares about my first job. It's never about my performance or my co-workers, mind you, but about my immigration status back then. Currently, in my (virtual) room of co-workers, many are also immigrants; I wouldn't be surprised that they've had similar nightmares.
I don't know, but you can trigger backups on demand using tmutil(8), and that's what I do.
> And if you do say 3 backups then get rid of #3, can it take incremental #4 on top of #2, or will it complain that the #3 state it expects is absent?
You can delete arbitrary backup(s). "Classic" Time Machine backups are snapshots deduped using hard links. HFS+ even supports directory hard links.
APFS already supports volume snapshots but not (I think) snapshot send / receive, à la zfs & btrfs. I thought that would be the logical next step. If Apple do add this or similar feature, would Time Machine have to switch its backing store yet again?
I've been generally happy with Time Machine's stability, but this is getting me a little worried. I guess now's a good time to looking into Arq (or similar) to replace my janky secondary backup scripts...
Do you know the number 99 (nine-nine) sounds like the derogatory term for mammary glands in Mandarin? Are they going to redact every instance of the number on campus, on grounds of potential sexual harassment?
[0] https://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/wireless-headset-h800
/s
Even Apple took MS money back in the day: seems to have worked out for Apple.
If Apple really wants to stick it to Google, they could make an iOS App Store policy exception for Firefox / Gecko engine. Heck, that alone may be enough to buoy Mozilla, w/o paying a cent.