Cloudflare is a for-profit company in the US. Their privacy claims can't be believed. Even if we did believe them, we have no idea if rsolution data isn't taken by US TLA agencies.
5,702 karma · joined June 9, 2017
Handwaving this away because "nobody will do this" is in the same family of issues as "I have nothing to hide" or "what can they really do with my data?"
> you can't expect people to fix everything, especially for fairly minor issues like this.
The feature is called "Load Remote Content". Turning that off should have predictable consequences. The fact that it doesn't do what people would rightly assume it should do is not a "fairly minor issue".
People who blindly accept problems, who accept a lack of concern about privacy, both as a right and as a preference, who handwave away poor behavior aren't helping anyone. Tech companies rarely DTRT on their own, so people need to hold their feet to the fire. Those companies don't need apologists.
I should've qualified what I wrote, but what I mean is that no matter who you are, if you don't know someone there and aren't paying them money, there's no way to communicate with humans there.
It's like companies that won't let you sign up unless you give them a cell phone number, but not only do they not have a number themselves, they don't even have email. Or, for companies like Verizon, they don't have email, but they have phone numbers with countless layers of "voice assistants" you can't skip. It's a new way of "communicating" that's just crazymaking.
vi versus emacs, vi versus vim, (guh sound)IF versus (j sound)IF, m68k versus x86, Mac versus Amiga, BSD versus Linux, et cetera.
The lack of open source anything for GPU programming makes me want to throw my hands up and just do Apple. It feels much more open than pretending that there's anything open about CUDA on Linux.
Huh?
A Ryzen can easily do real time transcoding. So why can't we do a price/performance comparison? A low end Ryzen that can easily do 4K 60 fps transcoding in real time costs $300 (with 24 gigs of DDR5 and 500 gig NVMe) and offers many times the overall performance of an N100 / N150 / N200. One can go even cheaper on a Ryzen, but that's just an example from Amazon.
Would some people pay twice as much for a computer many times faster, with more memory and more storage, and that can do software transcoding in real time? Sure.
Of course we'll hear from the apologists about how much extra work supporting "low end" systems is - think of the developers! think of Ubuntu's bottom line!
> Admittedly there is one big rub: the range of RISC-V devices with RVA23 support is, at the time or writing this, near non-existent.
They couldn't even wait for hardware to be available before doing this? So basically Ubuntu 25.10 only runs on hardware that doesn't yet exist. Nice.
> Focusing future Ubuntu support to devices that have more capable RISC-V profile sets will further position the distro as the de-facto OS on the platform.
...or everyone will move to something else - ANYTHING else - because we don't want to replace our brand new devices just to run Ubuntu.
Want an Arm SBC? Get an N100 instead! Want a Ryzen to transcode video? Get an N100 instead! Want a NAS? Get an N100 instead!
I get it, N100 people - you get a shiny new toy, and you want to hype it up as the Next Best Thing that's a great choice for everyone. The problem is that it's not the best choice for everyone, and it's getting old hearing about it.
Here are some reasons the N100 isn't best:
SBCs are smaller and almost always take less power.
Intel QuickSync isn't the same quality as software based transcoding, and not everyone wants to compromise on quality.
Like Jeff points out, N100 systems cost more, and the added performance over a Pi of some sort isn't always needed (although it's funny that the same people who point out the higher performance of N100 over a Raspberry Pi will at the same time dismiss a low power Ryzen :P).
They cost more.
N100 systems don't have enough PCIe lanes to replace certain I/O heavy uses.
Some people don't like the x86 ecosystem. N100 fans try to tell everyone that there's more software because it's x86, but that's a negative thing for some of us who prefer to install from source.
Intel gatekeeps products by removing features when there's no reason to do so. Even my 2014 AMD Athlon 5350 systems, which are very decently performing low power systems and which I'm still using as routers / firewalls / servers in many places, have ECC support in the CPU. (I wonder how the N100 would compare with a 2014 Athlon 5350, but that's a question for another time.)
The primary reason for me is a little different: Intel makes shitty decisions. All of the CPU vulnerabilities found that I know of have affected Intel CPUs more than AMD or Arm CPUs. Why? I think it's because Intel tries so hard to chase performance and marketing points that they prioritize this over security and reliability.
I bought an eight core Bulldozer in 2012 for compiling because I preferred eight integer cores over four cores plus hyperthreading in a Core i7-2600. Benchmarks then showed the Intel beat out AMD in many benchmarks then. However, more than a decade later, with toolchain improvements and with performance impacts of Spectre and Meltdown, my Bulldozer now beats an Intel i7-2600 at many modern benchmarks.
But it's not just security - Intel's 13th and 14 generation degradation debacle again shows that Intel is more concerned with marketing and benchmarks than having good, reliable products. That their CPUs can take hundreds of watts to compete with Ryzen illustrates this well. Would this be an issue with N100? Probably not, but I don't want any CPUs from a company that will compromise their products for profit and marketing purposes.
They tried to do AVX-512 and made a huge mess of which products have it - again, Intel were more concerned with benchmark results. After all, Intel's not going to release benchmark figures that show the effects of dropping the whole CPU's clock while running AVX-512. They tried to play us.
The bottom line is that I don't trust Intel, which is why I'll never get an N100, and all of these other reasons are why I'd never recommend them.
Are they inept? Or do they really only care about things that bring them profit and that normalize their marginalization of non-paying groups? Which explanation makes the most sense?
It's similar to this fortune(6):
It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.
-- Gore Vidal Subject to applicable law, Comcast may disclose information generated by your WiFi Motion to third parties without further notice to you in connection with any law enforcement investigation or proceeding, any dispute to which Comcast is a party, or pursuant to a court order or subpoena.
This is scary, particularly considering how the current administration wants to weaponize everything they possibly can.
I use this often because IPv6 on phone networks is invariably the same as the author's - native IPv6 plus carrier grade NAT IPv4, and most NAT implementations suck (they time out, for instance).
I haven't tried with WireGuard(r) yet, but I will soon (using NetBSD's clean reimplentation). With tinc [1] though, it's a piece of cake.
When it comes to the reliability of putting something on a shelf, then pulling it off twenty years later, tape still is better than everything else.
I ran an 8 gig Raspberry Pi 4 with mirrored 8 TB spinning rust disks for quite a while. Performance is very good, once you stop playing with all the meta tasks and run, you know, server stuff. I ultimately switched to another system not because of CPU, but because of memory. SearXNG [1] likes a lot of memory.
One-Punch Man is a reluctant mentor, is often broke, loves ramen and cares about others.
They are not the same.
I should've written per core.