4,701 karma · joined November 29, 2010
And if you want something which just works, it means you need a huge number of people doing grunt work, and that's the kind of thing that people are less likely to want to do in their free time.
Saying "FOSS world" we need XXX is pretty useless. As a FOSS mainatinaer, the answer I always give people demanding their favorite pet feature is, "clean, maintainable patches are appreciated", ChromiumOS is free software; someone could take it use it as the basis for something like ChromeOS. But the author of the article has basically admitted that the derivitives of Chromium would quickly fail if Chromium stoped being something that they could free ride off of. Shouldn't that tell you everything about what the problem is with this picture?
And yet, the people who insist on having source code so they can edit the program and recompile it have said that for programs, having just the binary isn't good enough.
We would all like to have a model where users don't get charged money, and yet are not the product. But I haven't seen a model that works to date. In some cases, I don't mind my personal date getting sold; in other cases I pay money because the service is valuable. But I certainly make backups since I don't assume that even when I pay $$$, that the company might not go poof in the night....
The equivalent would be someone which gives you only the binary to Libreoffice. That's perfectly fine for editing documents and spreadsheets, but suppose you want to fix a bug in Libreoffice? Just having the binary is going to make it quite difficult to fix things.
Simiarly, suppose you find that the model has a bias in terms of labeling African Americans as criminals; or women as lousy computer programmers. If all you have is the model weights of the trained model, how easily can you fix the model? And how does that compare with running emacs on the Libreoffice binary?
If you want something super-cheap, then perhaps it won't be useful 5 or 10 years later. You get what you pay for; this isn't unique for Chromebooks.
Sure, if you could set the Wayback machine back in time, and require that device driver be upstreamed, with enough programming information so it's possible to maintain the device driver, maybe it would be possible to upgrade to a newer kernel that doesn't have eleven hundred zero-day vulnerabilities. But meanwhile, back in the real world, very often there's not a whole lot you can do. So this is why it's kind of sad when people insist on buying Nvidia video chips that have proprietary blobs because performance, or power consumption, or whatever, instead of the more boring alternative that doesn't have the same eye-bleeding performance, but which has an open source device driver. Our buying choices, and the product reviewers that only consider performance, or battery life, etc., drives the supply chain, and the products that we get. And this is why we can't have nice things.
This is all done using computer-controlled manufacturing equipment, much of which is imported from Europe, where they are much more advanced on this front than in the U.S. One of the advantages of having computer controlled nail guns and vaccuum operated "wall flippers" is that the construction tolerances are far tighter than if you have humans nailing in the shingles, sometimes while on a ladder 15 feet above the ground.
The downside, of course, is that they only today have their one factory in New Hampshire, and while the walls can be shipped trucks on highways, if you want to build a large, luxury pre-fab home in Arizona, the trucks have to travel a long way, and that adds to the cost. This hasn't stopped some of their customers, though. Take a look at their web site for some example houses that they have built --- it's a far cry from what most people think of when they hear about "pre-manufactured houses". These are not trailer park homes!
I'm not surprised that Workspace accounts weren't included in the initial rollout. Workspace setups have interesting requirements that aren't necessarily there for personal accounts. For example, under some circumstances, if an employee gets hit by a bus, and there is critical business data which is stored in the employee's account, an appropriately authorized Workspace admin is supposed to be able to gain access to the employee's account. But what is the right thing to do for passkey access? Especially if the user uses passkey to authenticate to some non-:Google resource like, say, Slack which has been set up for corporate use? Should the workspace admin be able to impersonate the corporate employee in order to gain access to non-Google resources via passkey? What about if the employee (accidentally) uses their corporate account to set up a passkey to a personal account, such as for example E*Trade? Maybe the Workspace admin should have a setting where passkey creation is disabled except for an allowlist of domains that are allowed for corporate workflows? It's complicated, and if I were the product manager, I'd want to take my time, understand all of the different customer requirements (where customer === the Workspace administrator who is paying the bills) before rolling out support for Workspace accounts.
I recall a story from a colleague who knew some folks who had worked on the game System Shock (this was in the early nineties). System shock was one of the first games that had an engine that implemented real 3D physics; so when you threw a grenade, it would describe a real parabola. And you can lean around a corner and sneak a peak without exposing your entire body to enemy fire, and when you did that, the 1st person shooter rendering would realistically reflect that. They had an experimental version of the game that was hooked to a virtual reality headset at the time, and gave up on it because, as one of them joked, it was "virtual reality, real nausea".
This was 30 years ago, and things haven't improved since then.
The way that people who are trying to use ChatGPT is certainly an example of what humans _hope_ the future of human/computer interaction should be. Whether or not Large Language Models such as ChatGPT is the path forward is yet to be seen. Personally, I think that model of "every-increasing neural network sizes" is a dead-end. What is needed is better semantic understanding --- that is, mapping words to abstract concepts, operating on those concepts, and then translating concepts back into words. We don't know how to do this today; all we know how to do is to make the neural networks larger and larger.
What we need is a way to have networks of networks, and creating networks which can handle memory, and time sense, and reasoning, such that the network of networks has pre-defined structures for these various skills, and ways of training these sub-networks. This is all something that organic brains have, but which neural networks today do not..
If you have an app which needs a NoSQL interface, then you can do much better by using a cloud-native NoSQL service, as opposed to using Cassandra on your VM and then hoping you can get cross-zone reliability by using something like a Regional Persistent Disk. And sure, you could use Cassandra on top of cifs/smbfs or nfs, but the results will be disappointing. These are 20th century tools, and it shows.
If customers want Posix because they don't want to update their application to use Spanner, or Big Table, or GCS, they certainly have every right to make that choice. But they will get worse price/performance/reliability as a result. You keep talking about ossification and people refusing to refactor the storage stack. Well, I'd like to submit to you that being wedded to a "posix file system" as the one true storage interface is another form of ossification. Storage stacks that feature NoSQL, relational database, and object storage WITHOUT an underlying Posix file systems might be a much more radical, and ultimately, the "proper stack refactoring". A "modern containerized cloud workload" is better off using Cloud Spanner, Cloud BigTable, or Cloud Storage, depending on the application and use case. Why stick with a 1970's posix file system with all of its limitations? (And I say this as an ext4 maintainer who knows about all of the warts and limitations of the Posix file interface.)
Of course, for customers who insist on a Posix file system, they can use GCE PD or Amazon EBS for local file systems, or they can use GCE Cloud Filestore or Amazon EFS if they want an NFS solution. But it will not be as cost effective, or performant as other cloud native alternatives.
Finally, just because you are using "oss lib/software" does not mean that you need "Posix-complaint storage". Especially inside Google, while those internal customers do exist, they are a super-tiny minority. Most internal teams use a much smarter approach, even if that means that an adaption layer is needed between some particular piece of OSS software and a more modern, scalable storage infrastructure. (And for many OSS libraries, they don't need a Posix-complaint interface at all!)
Posix-complaint means sticking with an interface invented 50 years ago, with technological assumptions which may not be true today. Sometimes you might need to fall back to Posix for legacy software --- but we're talking about "modern containerized cloud workloads", remember?
As far as "proper stack refactoring" is concerned, again, the key is to make a business case for why that work is necessary. Tech debt can be a good reason, but doing massive refactoring just because it _could_ help other teams requires much more justification than "it could be beneficial". Google has plenty of storage solutions which work across multiple datacenters / GCE zones, including Google Cloud Storage, Cloud Spanner and Cloud Bigtable. These solutions or their equivalent were available and used internally by teams long befoe they were available as public offerings for Cloud customers. So "we could have done it a different way because it mgiht benefit other teams" is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. Speaking as someone who has worked in storage infrastructure for over a decade, I don't see the calcification you refer to, and there are good reasons why things are done the way that are which go far beyond the current org chart. There have been a huge amount of innovative work done in the storage infrastructure teams.
I will say that the posix/nfs/smb way of doing things is not necessarily the best way to provide lowest possible storage TCO. It may be the most convenient way if you need to lift and shift enterprise workloads into the cloud, sure. But if you are writing software from scratch, or if you are internal Google product team which is using internal storage solutions such as Colossus, BigTable, Spanner, etc., it is much cheaper, especially if you are writing software that must be highly scalable, to use these technologies as opposed to posix/nfs/smb. All cloud providers, Google Cloud included, will provide multiple storage solutions to meet the customer where they are at. But would I recommend that a greenfield application start by relying on NFS or SMB today? Hell, no! There are much better 21st century technologies that are available today. Why start a new project by tying yourself to such legacy systems with all of their attendant limitations and costs?
In general a TPM at Level N will have the technical skills of a Level N-1 SWE. So many TPM's have a CS background, and a good TPM is an amazing partner/resource for a TL to have, especially for a large, complex project which spans multiple teams and multiple departments.
For my Hybrid SMR project, my TPM came out of a HDD vendor, and was very well versed in the technologies of HDD internals. At the same time, he could navigate all of the bureaucracy and process to get test racks ordered, populated with servers, and installed in data centers. He could also create the capital budget plan and get it submitted and approved through finance so I could concentrate on the technology. A good TPM is critical for the success of a large projects; I couldn't have done it without him.
[1] https://blog.google/products/google-cloud/dynamic-hybrid-smr...
[2] https://www.t10.org/pipermail/t10/2018-September/018566.html
On the production kernel team, colleagues of mine worked on some really cool and new shit: ghOSt, which delegates scheduling decisions to userspace in a highly efficient manner[3]. It was published in SOSP 2021/SIGOPS [4][5], so peer reviewers thought it was a pretty big deal. I wasn't involved in it, but I'm in awe this cool new work that my peers in the prodkernel team created, all of which was not only described in detail in peer-reviewed papers, but also published as Open Source.
[3] https://research.google/pubs/pub50833/
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ABe4dsbIY
[5] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3477132.3483542
We have some really top-notch engineers in our production kernel team, and I'm very proud to be part of an organization has this kind of talent.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/902854/b788a6a3d77aba7a/
If you scroll down to the Most active employers in 5.19 by commits you'll see:
1. Intel 10.9% 2. (Unknown) 7.5% 3. Linaro 5.7% 4. AMD 5.5% 5. Red Hat 5.2% 6. (None) 4.3% 7. Google 4.1% 8. Meta 3.5% 9. SUSE 3.1% 10. Huawei 2.9%
The statistics are slightly different if you count by lines of codes changed, but either way, it's not all FANNG companies, not by a long shot. There are plenty of people who get started coding via kernelnewbies.org and other resources.
I work on infrastructure, and so a few years back, when I proposed a major project, I had to demonstrate how it would save *many* times the fully loaded cost of the engineers on the team, by reducing the Storage TCO for all of Google (for example). It was not enough for the project to "break even" --- the benefits had to do more than just exceed the "nominal" SWE cost. It had to be multiple times the cost of the SWE's, to account for the opportunity cost of those SWE's --- SWE's are a constrained resource, which is why a project needs to save $$$ (or increase profits) by many multiples the fully loaded SWE cost. (That project has since been completed, successfully, and I got a promotion to Sr Staff Engineer out of it.)
The reason why SWE's are a constrained resource is becaused finding good SWE's is non-trivial. As a TL, I don't want to waste my precious approved headcount on people who just want to rest and vest, or people who believe in the crazy talk of only needing to work 30 minutes each day. I'm trying to find highly motivated, smart, and talented SWE's who can also be team players. And if they need to have domain expertise (say, be proficient kernel engineers), it's super-duper difficult.
So I don't see any indication of people getting hired just to starve statups of talented engineers. We need every single talented engineer we can get for the projects that we want to accomplish. And in the time when we may need to slow down our growth, it may mean that we will need to slow, or shut down some projects. That may suck, especially if it's a project that we had invested a lot of passion into. But it's certainly no reason to panic. Slowing down growth is not the same as layoffs, and there is no shortage of work for us to do.
The other "brand" that universities care about is the their reputation by their professor's peers when it comes to hiring the best talent for their departments, and with the granting agencies who are deciding which research proposals they should fund. And here, what matters is the peer-reviewed publications at various academic journals and conferences. Whether a university's press office puts out a press release, which then gets mangled by various newspapers, doesn't really have negative or positive effect when it comes to how a university's research work is measured by the People Who Really Matter --- namely, other professors and the people who dispense the cash. Hacker News falls into neither of these two categories.
This is much like the oft-cited issue that the reporters aren't responsible for the headlines --- that is picked by the editors to make as big of a splash as possible.
As far as "patenting a technology from the 60's", even an incremental improvement on an old idea is still patentable. The real test is whether the patent cited the prior art, and you can bet that MIT Press Office didn't read the patent application before breathlessly sending out the press release.
The hard question from a reparations perspective is suppose that business person left the bulk of their family fortune to a particular church diocese. Let's further assume that donation was made in the form of the trust fund, so it's very easy to identify the source of a particular trust fund would not have existed but for the fact that this business person was part of the slave trade. What moral obligation, if any, does the church diocese have to repairing the harms that this donor may have inflicted on a group of people more than a century ago, given that in the meantime this church diocese has been enjoying a continuing income stream that originally had its roots in the slave trade?
One could argue, "none at all", and one could also point out that there was an awful lot of good being done by the works enabled from the income stream of that trust fund. Dismantling that trust fund (if it can be legally done; there might be donor restrictions that might make this difficult/impossible) would eliminate the good being done via that trust fund. But one could argue that this is a similar argument made by the British Museum when it was refusing to return the Elgin Marbles, and that it is a bogus one. Or someone could argue that no matter what the value of that trust fund should be, it pales in comparison that the harm that has been done, and so you shouldn't even try. Others might argue that at least admitting the truth of how an organization has benefited by past injustices is the important thing, and that reparations is not so much about money, as it is about repair --- acknolwedging and making at least some effort to repair the damage to the community by past injusticies.
After all, if someone burns down your home, what gets lost is far more than the monetary damages; it's also the emotion impact of having your home being lost, and objects of sentimental value, such as photographs, jewelry once owned by your mother, etc., which can't be compensated using mere money. All of that is true. And yet, having a true and sincere "I'm sorry" by someone who is genuinely sorrowful and repentant, can mean an awful lot.
Bottom line is "reparations" is a deeply complex topic, and it is not just about writing checks. In fact, that's arguably the least important part of the whole process. It's unfortunate that this is the part that most people who are against reparations focus upon.
It might be nice if people assumed good faith, as opposed to assuming that anything that $BIG_COMPANY might do is unreasonable and evil. Certainly many people on these threads immediately leapt to the assumption that it was enabled for everyone and was trying to coerce people into some kind of DEI hell that conservatives hate.
Specifically, it is only going to be enabled for these editions of Google Workspace: Business Standard, Business Plus, Enterprise Standard, Enterprise Plus, Education Plus
It is *not* going to be enabled for: Google Workspace Essentials, Business Starter, Enterprise Essentials, Education Fundamentals, Teaching and Learning Upgrade, Education Standard, Frontline, Nonprofits, G Suite Basic and Business customers
Even for those business accounts where this feature is enabled, the Workspace Admin for that domain can turn these stylistic suggestions on or off. (And you can turn off the inclusive language suggestions, while leaving other suggestions, such as for "concise language" on or off. There is a certain amount of granularity as to which classes of stylistic suggestions are enabled or not.) And users can also turn it on or off for themselves, regardless of what your Workspace Admin has decided about the defaults.
So sorry for bursting your righteous outrage bubble, but the intent is to enable this for those companies that might want to nudge their employees towards using more professional style of language. And if you don't like that, you can always leave and go work for some other employer....
If you can assume that you're always running on x86 architecture, with RDRAND and RDSEED, and pretty much all desktops, servers, and laptops have TPM chips (which have their own hardware random number generator) and are using UEFI boot (which also has a random number generator) --- and while maybe one of these are either incompetently designed, or backdoored by either the NSA or MSS, hopefully not all of them have been compromised, it's really not that hard.
The challenge has always being on the crap embedded/mobile devies, where manufacturers live and die based on a tenth of a penny in BOM costs..... (and where they tend to have hardware engineers writing firmware and device drivers, and contractors implementing their Minimum Viable Product, and no one ever goes back to retrofit security....)
The blog post is a general answer of why sometimes people's curiosity can't be satisfied; pamphlets are so 18th century, after all. Sure, that's what the authors of the Federalist Papers used, but in the 21st century, we use blog posts instead of pamphlets. :-)
1) I personally use Google, because it works for me. I will admit freely that part of this may be that I've gotten used to framing queries such that it works with the search engine that I'm used to using, and that's probably true for many people commenting on HN.
2) Every so often, these posts will inspire me to do my own non-scientific experiments such as using the same query, say, "Dua Lipa Levitating" or "Go modules vs packages" on say, DDG, Bing, and Google. When I did this experiment most reently, I generally find that Bing and Google are both more personally useful for me and DDG is less useful (but as the old latin saying goes, "De gustibus non est disputandum"). I will note that DDG had the more obstrusive advertising at the top of the results (Stubhub and Urban outfitters), and Bing and Google did not have any adds that I could find for that first query.
Given my personal evaluations, it tends to cause me to discount what many of the DDG enthusiasts have to say about DDG being is way better, simply because it doesn't accord with my own quickie experiments. But hey --- maybe it's because they enter in search queries differently than I do.
3) Given the hyperbolic and/or highly emotive nature of some of the comments about "holding users hostage" and complete lack of nuance over "violating users' privacy", again, it causes me to have a hard time taking everything else that rhwy have to say seriously.
4) I sometimes suspect people are remembering the past with rose colored glasses. I remember the search quality of Alta Vista (and with all due respect to the people who worked on Alita Vista and having had friends who worked there), the results were pretty crappy, and Google's results were heads and shoulders above somoe of the other competitors that were available back in the day.
5) All of this is my personal opinion; and users should feel free to use whatever search engine they want, and competition is a good thing.
Other than that, what I try to tell everyone to use 2FA authentication, and not just SMS text messages or TOTP's, but FIDO Security Keys to protect your digital identity. Never reuse passwords and use a password manager, yadda, yadda, yadda.
People seem to forget that Open Source does not mean that users get to demand that unpaid volunteers will magically do work for their pet feature requests. It just means that the source code is available and people are free to improve the code to make it better fit their use case. A proprietary OS is like a car whose hood is welded shut, and only the dealer is allowed to service it. An open source OS means that you can take the car to whomever you like, or even service the car, or improve the car, yourself. It does not mean that you get to have service or improvements to your car engine for free.
The other thing to note here is that Postgres was issuing fsync(2) calls from different processes, and some of those processes were ignoring the error return from fsync(2). If there is an I/O error, fsync(2) will tell userspace about it. However, there is nothing in POSIX which states that once a file has an I/O error associated with it, the fsync(2) system call will return errors forever and ever, Amen. So Postgres was being a bit dodgy with error returns as well, and was demanding that something that POSIX clearly never promised.
Good luck trying to use SELinux without having the policy installed; it's guaranteed to be non-functional. And given that the SELinux policy is distro-speicific, it's not like you can take a random Linux distribution, and enable SELinux and expect it to work. You enable SELinux on the boot command-line, but without the policy installed, it will be dead in the water. And configuring the SELinux policy is extremely non-trivial. It's several orders of magnitude more challenging than running, say, "mkfs.btrfs".
>That is exactly operating system does, which is the topic of discussion. Linux >OSs such as RHEL as an example.
If that's your definition of an OS, then there are plenty of Linux distributions --- aka, an "OS" by your definition --- that do *NOT* have SELinux built in, because they don't have an SELinux policy defined that will work with that distribution's system daemons.
Therefore, by your definition SELinux is not "built in" to all versions of Linux (specifically, "distributions"). Q.E.D.