oso2k

Ha! I feel like a dork now. After dinner haze.

   I used the filesystem like it was indented.

What does `indented` mean here. Not familiar with this usage.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Red Hat. I'm formerly an OpenShift Consultant and SA.

podman has underpinned our Kubernetes distribution, OpenShift, since 4.0 was released in 2019. OpenShift is a $1B+ USD business for us (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article271678707....). You can search and see a sample of who uses it for Enterprise level business.

3M and I think others make black retro reflecting stickers that turn silvery when reflecting at night. Craft and vinyl cutting machines can turn them into shapes, numbers, etc. Motorcycle riders will sometimes use them on their helmets or motorcycles which is how I came across this 25 years ago.

Motorcycle Black Reflective Tape 3M Scotchlite™ DYI Kit ME RK-99 https://a.co/d/2pNM5Js

If you could represent the docker state as a file with an updating (incrementing) timestamp, then you might be able to do something.

Alternative way without shelling out:

   SRC = $(wildcard src/\*.c)
   OBJ = $(SRC:.c=.o)
   SDEPS = $(SRC:.c=.d)
   EXE = myapp
   INC = include
   CFLAGS ?= -Os -MMD -MP
   LDFLAGS ?=
   %.o: %.c $(INC) Makefile
        $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c $< -o $@
   $(EXE): $(OBJ)
        $(LD) $^ $(LDFLAGS) -o $@
   # near the bottom of your Makefile
   -include $(SDEPS)

I like suckless style Makefiles

https://git.suckless.org/dmenu/file/Makefile.html

https://git.suckless.org/sprop/file/Makefile.html

with file rule variables (my name for them, `OBJ = ${SRC:.c=.o}`).

https://github.com/lpsantil/rt0/blob/master/Makefile

https://github.com/lpsantil/oop0/blob/master/Makefile

If you set `$(CC)` (like `CC=i386-linux-musl make`) and can deal with `$(CC)` being your linker. Not all projects can but most will tolerate it.

Lots of other good Makefile `help` target suggestions here.

   https://gist.github.com/prwhite/8168133

My favorite is (since it only depends on a recent bash):

   SHELL:=/bin/bash
   .PHONY: help help_target-funky+names.0k and_with_2_targets_and_spaces_like_bison
   help_target-funky+names.0k and_with_2_targets_and_spaces_like_bison: ## Funky ones & bison dual target display ok
           echo "bad - why are you not displaying?"
   help: ## bash help
   help: ## moar bash help
           @RE='^[a-zA-Z0-9 ._+-]*:[a-zA-Z0-9 ._+-]*##' ; while read line ; do [[ "$$line" =~ $$RE ]] && echo "$$line" ; done <$(MAKEFILE_LIST) ; RE=''

I have and that's the thing. Every webserver I'm aware of runs in the foreground unlike TSRs and PacketDrivers. I'm looking for a webserver that runs in the background.

Yes. It's the chip/socket to the right of the 8088 and 8087 sockets here - https://nicole.express/2023/book-it.html .

The BIOS dip chip is removable and flashable. The EMM Homebrew 8088 discord and Sergey’s BIOS have been two places working semi-independently on updated BIOSes.

This is all very adjacent to the suckless philosophy: https://suckless.org/philosophy/ . I sometimes wish we had a reset button to figure out where we went wrong; though I’m not a fan of systemd, but it seems like it was even before that.

I've been looking for TSR & Packet driver coding examples and resources (for a non-keyboard triggered use case). I want to implement a localhost only webserver as either a TSR or Packet Driver.

Correct. I’ve used pico & nano as my primary editors for 25+ years. A fun one to work around with nano in shellinabox browser tab is ctl+w (Where is/“Find” function in nano/pico, Close tab in Chrome/Firefox). nano let’s you remap it to ctl+f in nanorc at least.

I like that quote

   >> That srpm repo was taken away

   > exactly that is the crux of the problem that is getting everyone upset. do customers still have access to that?

Customers will always have access to srpms. They will, however, contain legally encumbered artifacts.

   >> the access to the upstream git repos hasn’t changed

   > but that does not allow building a 100% RHEL clone. although it is probably enough to build something sufficiently compatible.

Taking away sanitized srpm drops probably does affect those distros who would like to be a downstream of RHEL. Playing devil's advocate to downstreamers: But why wouldn't you want to collaborate with us in the upstream? Are they maybe implicitly recognizing the value in the engineering that Red Hat does? Or maybe even just the name Red Hat Enterprise Linux?

The GPL is a license and contract between two entities. We have no such contracts with non-customers. Maybe that is unfortunate.

In 2019 before IBM completed the acquisition, (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000108742319...), we had Sales & Marketing expenses of $1.38B. We spent $668.5M on R&D. About $2B spent on employees selling, marketing, teaching, documenting, building, maintaining, certifying, supporting, enhancing, testing OSS, including contributions to conferences, foundations, consortiums, of many, many different OSS interests. Over 200 upstream projects (https://redhatofficial.github.io/#!/main). I think about all the folks I've worked with in Consulting, Support, Engineering, Sales, Product Management, Technical Marketing, Recruiting. I think about their families and loved ones. ...And I feel like we're doing alright by OSS with what we're getting out of it. It might not be a perfect or ideal model for everyone. Most of us are willing to improve where we can.

   > btw: i am happy we can have this discussion without the emotions that usually go along with it. it can be difficult to get something across with all the noise everyone else is making.

Agreed. I do wish the discourse was less emotional that it has been. Many folks making assumptions without taking the chance to ask clarifying questions.

Also, thinking of this a bit more. I must admit, if my business plan was to clone Red Hat’s srpm repos and rebuild them (overly simplified), then losing access to Red Hat’s srpm repos would cause a lot of emotions. That srpm repo was taken away. That said, the access to the upstream git repos hasn’t changed.

I agree public sentiment does not seem to align with the change. And I believe a lot of sentiment was influenced by social media personalities, leaders of the post CentOS upstream projects. Even our competitors like Oracle and SUSE jumped in.

Almost all my accounts have some CentOS or other RHEL clones. We’re not suing those customers because they chose another Linux for a part of their footprint. We’re also not suing the clone makers. You’d think with all the lawyers we have access to, that would be an easy way to kill off clones. But we’re upstream first. Best ideas win. They tell you that on day one.

I do think Mike McGrath tried to communicate this. It got missed somehow.

Maybe we now got a case of foot (or even two feet) inserted into mouth. It’s highly emotional topic, even internally. I don’t know what the communications strategy is. Not my job. I will say that we’re encouraged internally, “don’t feed the trolls” and to let our various communication teams and leaders to do their jobs.

I just hope others like maddog guide the community back to sane discussions.

Skill? Funding? Effort? Nothing? It’s why we have CentOS’s origination before we hired the developers, Oracle’s Enterprise Linux, RockyLinux, AlmaLinux. We have invested massive amounts of dollars & human resources into our CI/CD, QA/QE, and performance testing. Maybe that worries people? That’s speculation on my part.

What we changed (my opinion: doesn’t represent what Red Hat is saying, has said, or will say) was an optimization (or correction for an oversight) to our CI/CD process after making CentOS the upstream to RHEL. We used to sanitize the RHEL srpms of Red Hat trademarks, graphics, proprietary information, embargoed information or source, etc. Since of a lot of the RHEL developers are CentOS, Fedora, upstream developers and this helped especially those CentOS developers. But if RHEL is downstream and already a git pull of those CentOS, Fedora, upstream, then sanitizing srpms is redundant, duplicative and even unnecessary for CentOS’s benefit.

> red hat circumvents that by using a support contract that terminates when users share their copy.

This is not true. Subscribers are allowed to share copies of source code, per the GPL, without penalty. See Section 1.4 of

https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20...

Also, penalizing customers for sharing source code makes no sense when we already do that by upstreaming our work and our internal policy is to "Upstream First".

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/what-open-source-upstream

That's not how we partner with Integrators, VARs, ISVs and other Partners. We have several programs to assist our Partners in making their development environments, production systems or SaaS platforms cost effective and sustainable. Even individuals, hobbyists, OSS developers have options.

https://connect.redhat.com/ https://connect.redhat.com/en/programs/independent-software-... https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-...

This is incorrect. Sharing source, you receive from Red Hat as part of your Subscription, is not limited by our Subscription Agreements and there is no penalty for sharing it. See Section 1.4 here.

https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20...

Specifically,

     This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license.

You only need to enable the companion source repo(s) to get access to the source. To be able to access the binary & source repos via our CDN, you need to be a registered “customer” of Red Hat (which includes no-cost developer account agreements) which then gives credentials to access our CDN. If you have a valid credential to pull binary RPMs, you also have access to pull source RPMs.

As a Red Hatter, I appreciate maddog’s view. I wish others had his wide perspective of what companies do for open source. Seeing how the sausage is made changes your perspective. And I wish we could give folks a lesson on what we actually sell because it’s not software or software licenses. We’re not skirting around open source licenses or even changing our licenses. We’re trying to keep our folks doing valued work for our customers. And so much of what we do makes it to the upstream projects that are shared with competitors, communities, and users.

RocketChat does good with minimal resources. Red Hat used that internally for about 5 years in Consulting. Red Hat definitely fits the xkcd 1782 IRC meme, though.

Also for this example, it is not unusual, especially for RISC ISAs, to have to or for it to be optimal to count down rather than how we’re taught in CS/EE/CE to count up in loops. RISC machines can often do several interesting things with zero’d registers or flags or conditions.

You might be surprised if disable Ryzen’s cache. A lot transistors are dedicated to cache.

IMO, it’s only a special case for commercial support reasons. Almost every engineer, QE, consultant, solution architect I know runs or has run nested virtualization for one reason or another.