houseofzeus

There indeed seem to be a lot of folks commenting who think being able to safely have a car seat on a plane would be a revolutionary change, when that's the part that's a solved problem.

Pretty much the same experience I've had on other carriers. Where you can/can't put them is pretty logical.

The installation mode for planes is actually easier due to the standardization of the actual seat belts versus for cars the carriers will have different instructions depending on whether UAS is present, belt install, top tether, etc. In an aircraft there's really only one way to do it which is passing the belt through.

The GP also seems to think that having rigid car seats on plane would be a net new thing. They are already allowed and flight crew already check that it has the right certification and is attached correctly - this is much easier on a plane because the only way to attach them is the seat belt versus most seats have at least 3 different ways to attach in a car.

Certified rigid car seats are already allowed onboard and pretty much every airline you've ever flown on has clear guidelines on which seats they can be placed in for exactly that reason.

What do you think people are attaching the already approved rigid car seats to the aircraft with?

In this context the baby that isn't strapped in is the loose object. The use of car seats and harnesses is not just about a full loss of control of the aircraft and resulting crash.

In my experience they always stopped by to check that the seat was certified and that you knew how to install it. For aircraft install though it's usually simpler than a car because the only way to do it is a belt pass through.

My experience has been that as long as your car seat has the right certification they are allowed and the flight staff do check both that it has the certification sticker and that you've installed then correctly. The installation mode for planes is typically significantly simpler than in a car because it's just the belt pass through and seat angle. There's nowhere to attach a top tether.

Also, car seats are actually allowed as long as they have the right certification sticker.

Thing is a rigid car seat is what you ARE allowed.

Dublin airport is also terrible once you are actually at the airport. Security there can be glacial.

I think most of these solutions including OpenShift Virtualization, Hyper-V, Proxmox, etc. do live migration. What the previous post is talking about is some of the more advanced VMware live migration features like storage live migration and cross-cluster live migration and some of the automations layered over the top of them.

Yes you are correct, it is kubevirt and leveraging KVM as the hypervisor coupled with the QEMU/Libvirt userspace pieces.

The ability to evacuate in it.

Surprised they aren't moving it to Youtube too.

It was basically in their investor presentation on the acquisition lol

'“I also think whoever was responsible for it should be fired,” she added.'

Ah but that's the joy of, it sorry about that - wasn't us, it was the computer!

To my knowledge the CNCF has archived projects [1] before for one reason or another (most commonly inactivity), but I'm not aware of a case where they have actively kicked a project out.

It's also interesting to think about what that would even look like since part of the project being added to CNCF in the first place were the trademarks etc. got handed over too [2] - not just the code.

[1] https://www.cncf.io/archived-projects/ [2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademarks

All the maintainers for linkerd are employed by Buoyant, which means under current graduation criteria it wouldn't have been graduated in the first place. Will be interesting to see if the CNCF TOC does anything about it though.

That first leg day is gonna be a real burner.

Largely, and in this case they'd likely be involved because of the latter type of jurisdiction.

They do. Source ISO images are a relic of the fact one of the ways sources would be distributed was on a physical CD.

They would have had to add a few externals to get to Graduated but it's definitely a minority:

https://github.com/cilium/cilium/blob/main/MAINTAINERS.md

Well, that and there appears to at least be a commercial market for an LTS based on announcements from Red Hat, Azure, and now Amazon.

Azure are the ones who effectively posed the question in the community of hey, since we all appear to be doing this is there any value in collaborating on it in the open by rebooting the LTS working group.

Now that said, while you are absolutely right that third party solutions are the biggest boat anchor to users upgrading whether commercial or open source, they are also the reason an LTS doesn't necessarily fix much because then those things need an LTS too and/or they decide hey this is great we will fix on this one and it becomes an even bigger lift when the ISV does need to bring their stuff up to latest.

It doesn't prevent you redistributing what you have already been given (binaries or source), it does however allow Red Hat to not give you future iterations.

Seems more likely Rakuten are paying CIQ for consultancy on their usage of Rocky.

Rakuten bought Robin.io to try and address this, and this is the K8S they will position inside Rakuten Symphony, time will tell how that pays off.

I think it's two fold:

1) I am not sure Rocky were actually re-packaging the RT stuff originally, they've got it now though.

2) RT is pretty finicky to tune correctly for your use case at the best times, and especially for use cases as exacting as the 5G RAN. I assume there is a consulting aspect to this that they are paying the CIQ folks for, but probably based on man hours or a flat fee rather than the per socket/node subscription they might have paid Red Hat.

Also, never consider how you will migrate users of the old thing if you are ever actually successful.