Although this project will probably never end up being used in any wide way, shouldn't the Linux community be concerned that it's running talent away with a poor culture?
No.
Anyone with any real experience in hacking the Linux kernel already knows what they're getting into. It is also very widely known that Linus is incredibly fair in his assessments. If you provide useful contributions, no worries. If your commit is a total brainfart, you'll get a rejection, but the abuse won't come unless you decide to be a dumbass or get all arrogant about it.
If there is one BS that needs to be called, it is the one on the "collaborative open plan office". Which would be slightly off-topic, and all but beaten to death.
You can never beat that ill-begotten bullshit idea to death. In fact, it needs to not only die, but have its corpse beaten until each subatomic particle is separated from the other, then have the whole mess carefully scattered to the four winds.
I was thinking about that... you can, to an extent, guide a team (a decent company will give you that ability and authority). OTOH, you'd have to get into the whole politics thing with the architects, team leads, and product owners before you could push anything like this.
That said (and as TFA says), not all projects in a company are suited for it.
Something else comes to mind... sometimes it does more harm than good to bust up a monolith. I know of a project that was broken down this way, and it wound up doing astoundingly stupid things (e.g. spewing 4,500 IPC calls betwixt 5 different servers just to establish one user session). While they really should have refactored the whole thing first (trust me, it's an ancient legacy stack that deserves to be re-written), they instead shot for breaking the thing down into bite-sized chunks, with little thought towards architecture or even communication between groups.
And in fact, the fundamental problems are not technology-based, but organizational/political ones. I love microservices, but they are, in the great scheme of things, a technical detail. No amount of technical silver bullet will help subvert organizational/political forces.
This, a million times this...
I did note however that TFA was aimed squarely at the C-level types (CIO/CTO) - these folks would be in the best position to do something about the politics, fiefdoms, etc and etc. The typical developer, sysadmin or devops guy? Not so much. Folks at our level only get to watch.
(On the other hand, it's good to keep an eye on the trends anyway, if only to divine which fad-of-the-month that you will most likely be afflicted with in the near future...)
Let me be clear: there are a class of problems that cannot be solved just by working more energetically.
Actually, TFA specifically says you'll most likely have to re-architect the product/application/problem *first*, before you just throw energy at it. TFA also goes on to say that you have to fundamentally change the structure of your organization if it isn't suited to the task (e.g. siloed orgs, etc).
No where in TFA does it say you have to simply throw more resources at the problem.
In fact, it even goes so far as to say that not all problems/projects are adaptable to this:
One thing CIOs need to understand is that you don’t just buy a can of “Microservices” and paint all your code with it and be done. How you get there depends on whether you are trying to alter an existing monolithic application or are designing from scratch. Author Martin Fowler says most successful microservices start with an existing app and re-architect it and that it’s much harder to design for microservices from scratch.
Lastly, microservices are not a boon to everyone. On-premise software, for example, might not be right for microservices, given the amount of coordination and infrastructure that is needed to deploy microservices applications. That doesn’t mean on-premise software couldn’t be architected around a set of services, but the deployment scenario (e.g. ship as a single-war or as an installer) precludes deploying as such.
...what was the business case for writing a library set for some very limited conditions?
I mean, yeah, I guess it would be kind of cool to run Windows x86 binaries on certain models of smartphone and all, but honestly, under what conditions did they think this would be useful (beyond the obvious 'gee whiz' factor)?
Mind, I'm not normally one to go reaching for business justifications and such, but I can't shake the feeling that they did this to, well, stay relevant. These days, if there's an application that I really need that only runs on Windows, I either find a workaround, or fire up a VM (viz. VirtualBox) and do whatever it is I needed to do with that application.
There was once a time where something like this was IMHO desperately needed (I'm talking long ago, back when Win4Lin was a thing), but nowadays? I just don't see it...
True indeed... but then, you can pipe it off to a heatsink sitting off to the side (meaning you can make the overall device thinner), and the closer proximity betwixt fluid and heat source means that you don't need as large of a heatsink (mostly because you're not waiting for a relatively large amount of heat to work its way out past the packaging.)
Dunno... most laptops nowadays have closed-loop cooling, and very few (I daresay statistically next-to-none) come across clogging and/or cooling-fluid corruption issues.
This is the same Raytheon that managed to spam-block their own SMTP traffic (I worked with them on a project about 10 years ago), and was generally so rotten at the job that the DoD kicked them clean off of the EMALL project.
Things may have changed in the ensuing 10 years, but I wouldn't be so quick to use "competent" in any sentence that refers to Raytheon...
On the other hand being expected to pay for the privilage of posting free apps is deeply offputting.
Depends... to put it into perspective from a hobbyist point-of-view? Let's play golf. No matter how you slice it** , you're going to lay out more than $100/year if you want to play this game. Funny thing, though - you don't hear too many people bitching about that...
They tried to play it off as "human error", but that 2-6 mpg 'error' cost Kia $300 million in fines (and in not-insubstantial checks written to a lot of Soul owners, my wife being the recipient of one of them).
You know what's funny? Sales-critters stealing client contact info (to start their own businesses, take it with them to a competitor, etc) used to be almost standard operating procedure 20-30+ years ago...
Still, I'd put a lot more faith in a segregated solution if the daughter had jumped up and down and begged and pleaded to go to computer camp and THEN come home saying "I hate computers".
Depends on what they did at the camp. I mean, if I had to spend two weeks sitting in scrum meetings I damned sure wouldn't like it either...
Agreed. I'm not seeing myself losing sleep over the presence of an ad blocker - doubly so on phones, where the stupid ad often blocks content outright.
(Slashdot, this means you, BTW. That stupid little 'popup' ad at the bottom of the screen actually blocks content.)
My LG G2 has a similar feature - you swipe from any point on the screen outward in any direction, moving your finger sufficiently enough to unlock the screen.
The G2 is 2-year-old tech, if memory serves (I bought mine new/unlocked back in April), which means the alternate setup has been around for at least that long.
Laugh and cry "tinfoil!", but I'm actually curious: would there be a way to backdoor/engineer a means to actually restrict/kill BTC by this route, or at least (eventually) corral it under official governmental control?
It appears that the CFTC has just declared a monopoly-by-fiat over trading a certain aspect of BTC (futures in this case). I don't think there's a route to do something nasty from here, but still, there's that nagging feeling...
Slashdot Mirror
Although this project will probably never end up being used in any wide way, shouldn't the Linux community be concerned that it's running talent away with a poor culture?
No.
Anyone with any real experience in hacking the Linux kernel already knows what they're getting into. It is also very widely known that Linus is incredibly fair in his assessments. If you provide useful contributions, no worries. If your commit is a total brainfart, you'll get a rejection, but the abuse won't come unless you decide to be a dumbass or get all arrogant about it.
It's about as fair as it gets.
Isn't that a strength of Linux?
Mostly, yes... in both directions.
Besides, this is not the first time this has happened, reason notwithstanding (see also Alan Cox.)
If there is one BS that needs to be called, it is the one on the "collaborative open plan office". Which would be slightly off-topic, and all but beaten to death.
You can never beat that ill-begotten bullshit idea to death. In fact, it needs to not only die, but have its corpse beaten until each subatomic particle is separated from the other, then have the whole mess carefully scattered to the four winds.
Since when does a DevOp develop a micro service?
I was thinking about that... you can, to an extent, guide a team (a decent company will give you that ability and authority). OTOH, you'd have to get into the whole politics thing with the architects, team leads, and product owners before you could push anything like this.
That said (and as TFA says), not all projects in a company are suited for it.
Something else comes to mind... sometimes it does more harm than good to bust up a monolith. I know of a project that was broken down this way, and it wound up doing astoundingly stupid things (e.g. spewing 4,500 IPC calls betwixt 5 different servers just to establish one user session). While they really should have refactored the whole thing first (trust me, it's an ancient legacy stack that deserves to be re-written), they instead shot for breaking the thing down into bite-sized chunks, with little thought towards architecture or even communication between groups.
And in fact, the fundamental problems are not technology-based, but organizational/political ones. I love microservices, but they are, in the great scheme of things, a technical detail. No amount of technical silver bullet will help subvert organizational/political forces.
This, a million times this...
I did note however that TFA was aimed squarely at the C-level types (CIO/CTO) - these folks would be in the best position to do something about the politics, fiefdoms, etc and etc. The typical developer, sysadmin or devops guy? Not so much. Folks at our level only get to watch.
(On the other hand, it's good to keep an eye on the trends anyway, if only to divine which fad-of-the-month that you will most likely be afflicted with in the near future...)
Let me be clear: there are a class of problems that cannot be solved just by working more energetically.
Actually, TFA specifically says you'll most likely have to re-architect the product/application/problem *first*, before you just throw energy at it. TFA also goes on to say that you have to fundamentally change the structure of your organization if it isn't suited to the task (e.g. siloed orgs, etc).
No where in TFA does it say you have to simply throw more resources at the problem.
In fact, it even goes so far as to say that not all problems/projects are adaptable to this:
...what was the business case for writing a library set for some very limited conditions?
I mean, yeah, I guess it would be kind of cool to run Windows x86 binaries on certain models of smartphone and all, but honestly, under what conditions did they think this would be useful (beyond the obvious 'gee whiz' factor)?
Mind, I'm not normally one to go reaching for business justifications and such, but I can't shake the feeling that they did this to, well, stay relevant. These days, if there's an application that I really need that only runs on Windows, I either find a workaround, or fire up a VM (viz. VirtualBox) and do whatever it is I needed to do with that application.
There was once a time where something like this was IMHO desperately needed (I'm talking long ago, back when Win4Lin was a thing), but nowadays? I just don't see it...
True indeed... but then, you can pipe it off to a heatsink sitting off to the side (meaning you can make the overall device thinner), and the closer proximity betwixt fluid and heat source means that you don't need as large of a heatsink (mostly because you're not waiting for a relatively large amount of heat to work its way out past the packaging.)
Dunno... most laptops nowadays have closed-loop cooling, and very few (I daresay statistically next-to-none) come across clogging and/or cooling-fluid corruption issues.
It is to the point where some small towns will give away houses to young families willing to come to the country side to live and work.
Apropos of nothing, I would be totally down with filling one of those slots... but I suspect that as a gaijin, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
I thought it would include a late-night infomercial...
(In the old days, the name "K-Tel" would herald the bitter end.)
Shut down the CEO and name a new JSON API?
Dunno - seems like the latter happens every time Oracle coughs up a new version of JRE... can't argue with the former, though.
only until you can't afford it anymore.
...in which case he'll probably have it sitting on tape. *shrug*
Of windows on the server
...only because it takes so damned many of them to do the job of one *nix box...
This is the same Raytheon that managed to spam-block their own SMTP traffic (I worked with them on a project about 10 years ago), and was generally so rotten at the job that the DoD kicked them clean off of the EMALL project.
Things may have changed in the ensuing 10 years, but I wouldn't be so quick to use "competent" in any sentence that refers to Raytheon...
Well, you got Oracle pegged pretty solid..
On the other hand being expected to pay for the privilage of posting free apps is deeply offputting.
Depends... to put it into perspective from a hobbyist point-of-view? Let's play golf. No matter how you slice it** , you're going to lay out more than $100/year if you want to play this game. Funny thing, though - you don't hear too many people bitching about that...
** bah-dump-tssssh!
FYI, Kia got burned for doing that a couple of years back, especially on their 2012 Soul models.
They tried to play it off as "human error", but that 2-6 mpg 'error' cost Kia $300 million in fines (and in not-insubstantial checks written to a lot of Soul owners, my wife being the recipient of one of them).
You know what's funny? Sales-critters stealing client contact info (to start their own businesses, take it with them to a competitor, etc) used to be almost standard operating procedure 20-30+ years ago...
Nice troll, but you're running on false assumptions (which probably explains why you posted AC...)
Still, I'd put a lot more faith in a segregated solution if the daughter had jumped up and down and begged and pleaded to go to computer camp and THEN come home saying "I hate computers".
Depends on what they did at the camp. I mean, if I had to spend two weeks sitting in scrum meetings I damned sure wouldn't like it either...
Not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but did Doubleclick recently write any big checks recently?
Agreed. I'm not seeing myself losing sleep over the presence of an ad blocker - doubly so on phones, where the stupid ad often blocks content outright.
(Slashdot, this means you, BTW. That stupid little 'popup' ad at the bottom of the screen actually blocks content.)
My LG G2 has a similar feature - you swipe from any point on the screen outward in any direction, moving your finger sufficiently enough to unlock the screen.
The G2 is 2-year-old tech, if memory serves (I bought mine new/unlocked back in April), which means the alternate setup has been around for at least that long.
Laugh and cry "tinfoil!", but I'm actually curious: would there be a way to backdoor/engineer a means to actually restrict/kill BTC by this route, or at least (eventually) corral it under official governmental control?
It appears that the CFTC has just declared a monopoly-by-fiat over trading a certain aspect of BTC (futures in this case). I don't think there's a route to do something nasty from here, but still, there's that nagging feeling...