Except separately they still work with no interdependence. If you want to use syslog you cannot remove journal, the best you can do is mask it by having it send the data to syslog.
Lol, so the ignorance statement was yours huh, that is not all they did. They made it hook and replace things it should not, causing dependencies, so that other things eventually had to use it. But I assume that is why you are posting AC.
how funny, the fanbois seem to be the one who refuse to see that there is any issue. Remember there is a reason Linux has dominated the server market, and not Microsoft, and this process seems to want to take us away from that for the sake of something most users will probably not consider using for a long time off. It is not because of the init system by the way.
And you have no evidence of that.. there are some better things in it, but there are many WAY worse things in it.. This is an embrace, extend, extinguish maneuver.
If they offer x capacity they should be able to provide x capacity without the extra charge. In this case it is more of an issue that they are overselling and instead of bringing their network up to par with their offering they are charging extra.
They are paying for their bandwidth.. The problem is not happening until it reaches the shared customers network, shared with the ISP and netflix, not at the transit networks. Netflix should only be paying for its ISP, which it is. Its ISP pays for the transit with peering agreements, and the customer pays for the endpoint connection, which they both are.
In this case Verizon is trying to act as a transit operator when they are an ISP. Verizon has a transit operation, but it should not get to charge like one when it is not performing that role.
Umm, your phone provider is getting paid by you, they should not be getting paid by him AGAIN, since they dont provide service to him, other than a toll (now) to provide access to you.. Are you really this dense, or just a troll?
Payment record
You - Your provider
Brother(netflix) - his provider
Brother(netflix) - Your provider - to ensure you can talk to him over a link you can understand each other one..This is where the theft is occuring
Part of the issue with this is that people are hosting their entire servers on the cloud, not just a website (not sure why you brought up a colo server, you can get the server back). With a website backing up your data is easy, develop locally and push to the providor. But with people hosting entire servers it is a much larger task.
Netflix is your brother. You called him, he answered, but your phone provider wants to charge him for the call, even though he is already paying for phone service.
How can you not tell? You seem to be trying to setup a strawman by comparing legitimate traffic to a DOS type of attack and try to claim that you cannot tell the difference?
So if an ISP becomes a teir one or tier 2 provider up stream that gives them the right to bottle neck their customers and create toll roads that would never have been there? This has not been the case previously because like you said, they "purchased transit".
Except you are not confusing the last mile ISP part of verizon with the commercial ISP of verizon, and the mistake can be summed up in this quote of yours:
The receiver shouldn't be paying because they may have neither requested nor want it.
They DID request it and they DID want it, otherwise it would not have been transmitted through their network. It is not like netflix just randomly sends data to other peoples network.
Except now your brother has to pay for his calls, AND your calls, he has to pay for his phone service provider and then your provider to make sure your calls are clear to him.
That is NOT how it has worked for decades. Sure there have been paid agreements, UPSTREAM, but not with ISPs, whose customers generate ALL the traffic. ISPs benefit much more from the service providers been there then the service providers themselves because without the latter there would be no need for the ISP.
It is not "clearly" If the nurse failed to take off the suit properly then it is not "clearly" The CDC's fault. Even with a buddy it is possible to contract it;.
Having worked at a nuclear power plant i know that wearing full biohazard suits will not protect you if you do not know how to take them off properly. There is loads of training at the plants on how to take them off without contaminating yourself for a reason. If the healthcare worker did not take her suit off properly then it has nothing to do with either of your 2 limited options.
Slashdot Mirror
So I can completely pull journald out and not use it, and just use syslog? I dont think you know what you are talking about.
Except separately they still work with no interdependence. If you want to use syslog you cannot remove journal, the best you can do is mask it by having it send the data to syslog.
They dont have time to get into the politics, not the contribution.
why does he need to explain to you, someone who has a habbit of fanboishly attacking others for their issues?
That is very debateable, stop trying to say it like it is an undisputed fact.
Lol, so the ignorance statement was yours huh, that is not all they did. They made it hook and replace things it should not, causing dependencies, so that other things eventually had to use it. But I assume that is why you are posting AC.
how funny, the fanbois seem to be the one who refuse to see that there is any issue. Remember there is a reason Linux has dominated the server market, and not Microsoft, and this process seems to want to take us away from that for the sake of something most users will probably not consider using for a long time off. It is not because of the init system by the way.
way to fanboi.. It could not be any reason, such as hooks from other dependencies forcing them right?
And you have no evidence of that.. there are some better things in it, but there are many WAY worse things in it.. This is an embrace, extend, extinguish maneuver.
So I have to have special tools to read something which could have been read universally previously. You dont see an issue by that?
If they offer x capacity they should be able to provide x capacity without the extra charge. In this case it is more of an issue that they are overselling and instead of bringing their network up to par with their offering they are charging extra.
They are paying for their bandwidth.. The problem is not happening until it reaches the shared customers network, shared with the ISP and netflix, not at the transit networks. Netflix should only be paying for its ISP, which it is. Its ISP pays for the transit with peering agreements, and the customer pays for the endpoint connection, which they both are.
In this case Verizon is trying to act as a transit operator when they are an ISP. Verizon has a transit operation, but it should not get to charge like one when it is not performing that role.
Umm, your phone provider is getting paid by you, they should not be getting paid by him AGAIN, since they dont provide service to him, other than a toll (now) to provide access to you.. Are you really this dense, or just a troll?
Payment record
You - Your provider
Brother(netflix) - his provider
Brother(netflix) - Your provider - to ensure you can talk to him over a link you can understand each other one..This is where the theft is occuring
Part of the issue with this is that people are hosting their entire servers on the cloud, not just a website (not sure why you brought up a colo server, you can get the server back). With a website backing up your data is easy, develop locally and push to the providor. But with people hosting entire servers it is a much larger task.
Netflix is your brother. You called him, he answered, but your phone provider wants to charge him for the call, even though he is already paying for phone service.
Umm, we are not talking about a transit network, we are talking about ISPs. They can be part of the same company, but they are not the same.
How can you not tell? You seem to be trying to setup a strawman by comparing legitimate traffic to a DOS type of attack and try to claim that you cannot tell the difference?
So if an ISP becomes a teir one or tier 2 provider up stream that gives them the right to bottle neck their customers and create toll roads that would never have been there? This has not been the case previously because like you said, they "purchased transit".
The receiver shouldn't be paying because they may have neither requested nor want it.
They DID request it and they DID want it, otherwise it would not have been transmitted through their network. It is not like netflix just randomly sends data to other peoples network.
Except now your brother has to pay for his calls, AND your calls, he has to pay for his phone service provider and then your provider to make sure your calls are clear to him.
That is NOT how it has worked for decades. Sure there have been paid agreements, UPSTREAM, but not with ISPs, whose customers generate ALL the traffic. ISPs benefit much more from the service providers been there then the service providers themselves because without the latter there would be no need for the ISP.
Actually settlement free peering has always existed for the last mile providors, who will ALWAYS by definition have a traffic imbalance.
what about the last mile? I am on TWC, but out in the country. I have a choice between twc and ATT.
It is not "clearly" If the nurse failed to take off the suit properly then it is not "clearly" The CDC's fault. Even with a buddy it is possible to contract it;.
Having worked at a nuclear power plant i know that wearing full biohazard suits will not protect you if you do not know how to take them off properly. There is loads of training at the plants on how to take them off without contaminating yourself for a reason. If the healthcare worker did not take her suit off properly then it has nothing to do with either of your 2 limited options.