knorker

Which is why your job as a responsible company you should have verified your offsite backups on 28th Feb.

Just like you would if wildfires started breaking new records in Oregon, if that's where your (for some reason sole) cloud region is.

It should already be set up, of course, but from a data point of view this is when you're thankful that at least this raised risk came with a heads up.

Sure. But given that the affected customers would by definition not have offsite backup, the comparison is against a smaller operator that has way more risk of fires, theft, bankruptcy, incompetence, earthquakes, power delivery, and all the other risks.

Sure, fewer customers per location, but the critique here is of customers who chose AWS, the fair comparison is NOT against those who chose to be in 6 different non-AWS DCs, but against those who chose to be in ONE non-AWS DC. Decentralized aggregated across customers or not, the customers who chose unluckily still lose data.

> If your organization runs on AWS then you should have a contingency plan for the data center being destroyed by drones.

If your organization runs on servers in your basement you should have a contingency plan for flooding, fire, copper thieves, diesel shortages, etc… etc… etc…

Or are you basically saying that the only safe place is outsourcing your ops to a mid sized operator? Too small and nobody will pay for the every day risks. Too big and it's a war target? Ok, let's continue that plan. Now military users move their workloads to the mid sized operators for the exact same reason you did. Oh no, we're back at square 1.

A plan of putting all your eggs in one basket is never good. And it's completely orthogonal to AWS vs the non-AWS options.

Pretty basic stuff.

> If you don't know what Wildberries is

Not exactly esoteric knowledge. But it's also not the same thing. Wildberries could not "back up" their inventory to an offsite location with the footprint of a suitcase.

> If your organization runs on AWS then you should have a contingency plan for the data center being destroyed by drones. Is that on your risk management plan?

Sure, if you discard ALL other risks, that happen every day, leaving only war as the remaining risk to manage, then your risk management plan makes sense.

But the other risks are still there. Your DC operator going bankrupt and having their power cut is a risk that didn't go away.

> You don't need better missile defense than AWS.

Well, obviously.

> You don't need missile defense at all because you won't be a target.

No, you don't need it because you have offsite backups. And this is completely disconnected from whether you use AWS or DIY.

> you won't be a target.

Of missiles, maybe in this particular conflict, sure. But running a DC is not your core business, so which DC is more likely to be subject to burglary, power outages, diesel shortages (Amazon will have better negotiators than you), fire suppression, hell, private fire departments if needed, etc…

Was missiles or copper thieves the biggest threat, even there, in 2020? Would AWS or every small company be better at protecting against the latter?

What's you point? That if you had run your own DC in that region (because that was your business requirement) then you'd have better missile defense than AWS?

Or maybe AWS or DIY, you are always responsible for geographic diversity?

Anyone losing data over this lost it because they'd literally told AWS to only store it in one place.

As someone who did train one of the traditional martial arts for a few years, I appreciate the comparison.

I don't know how much weight your "just" is meant to carry, but I remember a culture of cope and excuses about why "my" flavor wasn't the winner of any MMA event.

But at least I got some exercise, strength, and flexibility out of it.

I think it's an interesting analogy, not to be dismissed so easily.

I don't see him saying the point is volume of code. I see AI generating code, and if I question it, it can justify design choices pretty well. I can give it bug symptoms, and it can find and fix the bug. Usually.

But yes, the analogy breaks down in the fact that I understand what it's saying and understand when it's wrong, because I learned it in the first place.

Or maybe it doesn't break down completely. If an MMA (AI) tells me to move in a way where I know I'll lose my balance, or over extend, I will say no, because of my previously acquired experience.

Well, for one it breaks right click and copy link location.

Again, that only works for large companies, and for companies that can exists even if their service is downloadable.

Which fine, you can choose to take that political stance. But that's a stance of "I want to change the world to my liking", not "I want to help the world/people".

Up to you, of course, but I prefer to help not only large companies.

This means you have only solved the problem for large companies, and specifically those who have money and who have a functioning procurement system that's developer-driven. Which is a very narrow use case.

Also relevant comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49596403

Sure, but for anything except large companies it has a bootstrapping problem. I'm absolutely not going to use AGPL software in a test one-person trying to sell a service kind of deal. So if it takes off, I'm already on a non-AGPL stack, so why reach out at that point to get a commercial license for software I don't even use?

And hell, even without money involved, I'm not going to make a hobby project with AGPL software either. Not only may I have small parts of the project I've not opensourced, but AGPL is untested in how far the virality goes. Are my backup cronjobs in scope? I certainly don't want to be the test case for this. Even if I win against an AGPL troll, I'll still lose.

Yup. As I said in another comment "I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else".

Could you please take my question at face value?

> I chose to do it for free to help other people. And picking a MIT license does the opposite.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I want to help other people, then giving them the means to do what they want with no real restrictions is "the opposite" of that?

> Companies that want to take without giving back

So this is not about helping anyone else, but about mandating a behavior, even if that behavior is "pay it forward".

Not really "one disadvantage" as much as "the main use case".

What's the difference to you between a rug pull and theft?

Do we really need the latest kernel on them, though? As in, is it worth it?

In 100 years, if we need to run kernel 6.12 to use a 3c509, is that all that bad? It's not like being "stuck" on an old IRIX without the proprietary dev CD where you have a catch 22 problem.

An old system version that's completely open is whatever the sysadmin version of "turning complete".

Sure, port the open system to the hardware that does not have an open system. But I question the value of keeping it up to date.

All else being equal, sure it'd be cool. But all else is not equal. So yes, ripping out old code is the right move for Linux, in my opinion.

Huh? You release code so that people will have to rewrite it?

I really don't understand what your goal would be in releasing code at all, then.

Which could make the business untenable. I'm not GP commenter, but I do want to be useful to these too.

And as others have said the deceptive term of "plugging the SaaS loophole" ignores that it means most software cannot be combined with it. Most. By far most.

Sure, some people will say "well fuck that software". And that's a stance. But it ain't freedom.

Do you have data on that last bit, or just a guess? As a hobbyist and OSS developer I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else.

> Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along.

No. YOU changed your mind, to become less free and more authoritarian.

> gained little for users

What? The world runs on Linux.

> or developers.

Were you even there before "everything" was open source and/or free software?

> our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires.

Yeah that was always allowed.

The problem with freedom is that people get to make their own choices, eh?

It was one vote away from going Thomas's way, so I wouldn't say it doesn't matter what he thinks.

As a non-american, I would have enjoyed the precedent that the logical conclusion had to be that I would not be subject to the laws of the US, when visiting.

The Thomas interpretation must logically have given diplomatic immunity to anyone on an ESTA too.

I also find it useful to see someone's progression. Newer posts on a topic from the same person will usually have clearer thinking about it.

I disagree with removing timestamps. It's extremely frustrating to read some technical post somewhere only to finally see that it was written in 2008.

The very first thing I read now on that site when looking for a good example of this was "Which Linux distribution do you like, and why". You know, it REALLY matters if that discussion is from 1995 or 2025.

Nowadays I tend to close articles if they don't have a year listed. Without the context of knowing if it's from last century, it's often less informative than not reading it at all. It could still be relevant, but the context is very important.

To add insult to injury, some unhelpful people write month and day, but not year.

If there's anything that's anachronistic, it's native apps.

You want it graphical: Make a webapp.

You don't: Make a TUI.

What exactly is the use case for native apps? Even lots of legacy code can build to WASM now.

(yes, I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much)

So wrong.

They're fast, efficient, work across SSH, in a tmux, and survive the almost daily browser upgrades.

And they are easy to run as separate users without VNC or sandbox hell.

Like do you want to think about X/Wayland isolation, or do you just want to get shit done?

This reminds me how I've had to tell people to try to type better and nt us wird abbrvs, even if it means they can type it faster. Because if you want 100 people to read it, then every second you waste for the reader is worth you fixing up your message for over a minute.

It's very likely that proper punctuation and capital letters help the reader, then it doesn't matter than not using them is faster to type.

I'm sure we've all gotten that big stream of consciousness email that's a 15 line blob of lower case text, with no punctuation or line breaks.

I don't mean every ephemeral message needs to be perfect, of course. Just, you know, readable.

> Their employee base in Washington has almost no american born engineers.

Was that a sharp turn, or was it related in some way?

I don't feel like power users are catered to either. Like if you have a Google workspace account (if you're not a company, that's a power user) then you can't do "remind me to X". That's reserved for non-power users.

... At least last I checked.

NSA chief also says water is wet.

Having the word "secure" as part of the product name is pretty brave, especially if you're Cisco.

Sure, but you could have done that without pimpl, too. At least without defaulted or inlined constructors/destructors/etc.