Did you hear more about the content of the DNC emails that were leaked, or about *theories* that Russia had hackers trying to meddle in the election?
And yet, only one of those two things happened for sure. But go on, embrace the conspiracy theory narrative instead of looking at facts. At least now we know that when the liberals lose, they don't just lose the election, they also lose their moral compass and common sense.
The whole mass hysteria about Russia comes from the FUD campaign launched by Clinton to distract people from the fact that she was sending top secret emails in plain text using her own Exchange server instead of using the state department secure infrastructure.
She lost the election, can we stop this idiotic red scare? Russia is a third world country and their "state sponsored" hackers use the same kind of low quality scripts that mafiaboy used to ddos yahoo, let's get real.
And yet the scariest thing is that Obama is a pacifist compared to mainstream American thinking. Both the politicians and, more importantly, the people of America -- who can agree on more money for the military and more aggressive action around the world when they can't agree on anything else.
Actually people are fed up of the constant meddling in other countries affairs, that's one of the reasons why Trump was elected. At least during the campaign MAGA was all about putting foreign policy on the backburner and dealing with crumbling bridges and schools. America first, fuck the TPP, fuck the UN, etc. Not sure to what extent it's actually happening but lots of people want that.
Meh we've had endless discussions and none of the scenarios were really more cost-effective. There's too many packages and products licensed differently, we don't have just one type of workload.
Anyways both the RHEL and MSFT licenses are peanuts compared to the obscene Oracle and IBM licenses. When we get SQL Server on RHEL I will personally fly to wherever the fuck Oracle have their headquarters to take a piss on their logo.
what you end up with are 50,000 geeks all with completely different ideas of what a desktop environment should look like and going off and creating YADE (yet another desktop environment) instead of working together to make the one, true DE better and more usable.
I think that's a strength, not a weakness. Look at Ubuntu; they had this horror called Unity that was basically the Apple philosophy on Linux, a one-size-fits-none GUI that "knew better" than its users and wanted to have a similar experience for everyone, and it has been a huge failure.
You don't succeed in life by adapting your model to be a clone of the competition. You succeed by embracing your identity and providing a real alternative, not a discount runner-up.
As long as people can install free software and customize it the way they want, the Linux desktop is a winner. Let Microsoft worry about market share, who cares.
I use Gnome 3 and it works pretty well. The only customization I did was to install Tweak tools so I could get min/max buttons on the windows and a taskbar on each screen. Other than that everything works well, at least on xorg (I've had a few issues with Java GUI on wayland because of my high resolution monitors).
I've used Cinnamon and KDE but came back to Gnome because it's more stable. I use Fedora, not sure if the Gnome on other distros is broken, but overall I really don't see why some people get their panties in a bunch about Gnome 3.
In any event, if that's what you call a colossal disaster I hope you never have to face actual challenges in your life because you don't seem to have a high threshold for problems.
The next step would be a plan to migrate from the legacy Windows apps over to open source based alternatives.
This is another case where what appears to be common sense doesn't survive contact with reality.
You live in a fantasy if you seriously believe that there's open source alternatives to everything that runs on Windows. Either that, or you're thinking in terms of "checkbox alternative", such as saying that Gnucash is an alternative to Great Plains or Accpacc, discarding the shitload of missing features or the fact that there's complex integrations and a large ecosystem of plugins required to communicate with vendors, partners or other systems.
Here's an example. Many big suppliers won't allow B2B automation unless orders are pushed via AS2 or EDI, and many requires a full-blown GDSN connection. This means that if the city wants to JIT their toilet paper orders instead of paying a fortune in warehousing, they must be able to have their accounting system approve and transmit orders. This requires specialized plugins in products like Sage or Dynamics. You won't find anything to fork on github to deal with that, and even if you were, it would be a terrible idea because the second the protocols or headers change in the B2B schema, you're fucked since dude420@github is not going to give you a clear roadmap in lockstep with what the big suppliers or vendors request.
In an ideal world it would all be web-based and browser-neutral and maybe even SaaS, but given the level of customization required for a large organization, it's still a pipe dream.
We should always consider the TCO and not the sticker price.
At the office we pay roughly $2,500 per hypervisor per year to run RHEL virtual machines, plus a ton of extras (they like to licenses useful things separately, a la Oracle). VMWare license not included, of course.
Retail price for the Microsoft equivalent, Windows Server DataCenter, is a one-time $6,000 fee and that includes Hyper-V, which is nowadays more or less comparable to VMWare. And nobody in the enterprise world pays retail with Microsoft, there's always a huge discount for ELA.
Bottom line, if you want support, Windows is less expensive than RHEL.
I think Oracle Linux is slightly less expensive than RHEL but then you just get CentOS + Oracle drivers so it's not really the same product. Not sure about SLES but I doubt they're cheaper. Last time I checked Ubuntu was $1,500 / yr, but then who wants that in their data centers I wonder.
I don't even think this is a "Microsoft bribe" situation. If you do a quick search about the Accenture report you'll see that the whole thing is a n-ring circus. They didn't simply switch to Linux, they decided to centralize IT at the same time.
IT centralization is always a fuckfest, and now of course they blame Linux for that.
Peter Ganten, a board member of the Open Source Business Alliance, told ZDNet that the organizational problems date back to around 2003, when Munich took the decision to switch to Linux. In parallel with that migration, the council also tried to centralize its IT support structure, getting rid of a system where each department had its own IT team.
Switching back to Microsoft won't solve this problem, unless they go full cloud with something like Office 365 which would take a big chunk of the infrastructure away from the hands of those incompetents.
You will often hear the Windows guru say "have you tried shutting it off and turning it back on?" Yes, sounds like a joke but it happens. But you don't hear that from the Linux guru.
You're right, the Linux guru knows that systemd might keep the server from booting for some fuckall reason if he power cycles it, and it's on with the shoes and coat at 3am as you're off to the data center.
If you experience SERVER problems due to systemd, you can look at the documentation on their website at https://www.freedesktop.org/wi...
Even nobel prize winners are trying to make a quick buck from publishing their books, instead of spreading their ideas to a bigger audience free of charge. Definition of irony?
Obama won a Nobel prize for peace, then went on to spend the most money on the military in the history of the USA, on top of vastly expanding NSA spying programs and establishing a formal kill list.
Think I'm kidding?
Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.
Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
A bank which requires debt to be paid of reduced world hunger by 40%? Absolutely laughable.
it's not just his bank directly, it's the concept he invented (microcredit).
And it does work. Let's say someone is very poor and tries to make a living selling bottles of water on the street. They buy 10 every day from a grocery store and make a profit of a few cents; it's difficult to sell more because people don't buy warm water and the constant trips to the grocey store to restock is taking a long time. Getting that business to the next level, which would be to sell 50 bottles a day, would require a small plastic cooler. From our perspective it's cheap, maybe $15, but for someone who makes a few cents a day, it could take a long time to save $15. That's where microcredit comes in. The person can now buy a cooler and quintuple their income, which allows them to repay the debt much faster. And then after a while maybe they're ready for a second cooler, or an employee.
There are other forms of microcredit that work too, like "microcredit unions", where a bunch of poor people pool their money and each member of the pool can borrow a larger sum in a round-robin fashion.
It all comes down to leverage. There's a ceiling (or more accurately a chasm) but this kind of financing works.
China is throwing tons of money at worthless projects: cities with no residents, massive investment in research with no accountability for quality, and huge state-sponsored projects that regularly fail - such as bridges and dams.
That kind of comment is somewhere between "hindsight is 20/20" and reversed survival bias. You look at things that failed and ignore those that worked.
The population of Shanghai went from 16 to 24 million people in the last 15 years. That's more than 500,000 newcomers *every year*. Those people need a roof over their head, they need food, they need plumbing and waste management, transportation, etc. And Shanghai is not even among the fastest growing city in China. For instance Zhengzhou went from 3 million to 9 million in 5 years - that's like transforming Phoenix into NYC in 5 years.
And it's not just about the population density. A decade ago, China was importing garbage from the USA to recycle and extract resources. They no longer do that because their industry is catching up; in fact, more and more they don't even bother shipping back containers when they send stuff to the USA, they sell them on the cheap or even trash them. Another sign that they're moving ahead full speed is that the bulk of their industrial capacity goes to the domestic market. The crap you can buy at Walmart is a drop in the bucket compared to the volume they're selling to the new Chinese middle class, which is amazing.
China has been growing at a crazy speed, and mistakes are made here and there, but I'd be curious to see how well you personally would succeed with those kinds of challenges. This is more complicated than playing SimCity.
Like all giant corporations, Facebook/Google/Apple/Microsoft/etc. exist first and foremost to monetize the great unwashed masses. Part of the manipulation required to do that most effectively was convincing them that there was any other goal than that.
I don't think this was true for Facebook, at least initially. Until the "Lean in" lady came in, they were reluctant to build their ad platform to target specific demographics. The general culture before she came in was that Facebook was making money to grow the network and improve the user experience, not the other way around, and budgets were set accordingly (i.e more funding for features and growth, less for monetization opportunities). Now the greedy bunch is in charge of course, as it usually happens when a company becomes successful (the parasites never join while there's still a risk that the company will fail).
I suspect the same thing happened at Google. They brought in the soulless crook and the first thing to go out the window was the "don't be evil" culture.
The key figures (Mark Z and Bill G) along with the key corps (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, IBM) I mentioned above, unfortunately, have decided to cramp their little brains with "Social Justice" mantra that takes them further and further away from true enlightenment, and thus, have lost their 'purpose of being'
Don't put them all in the same bucket. All those companies will profess their love of "diversity" because it's trendy, but Google and Facebook stand apart from the others in your list as they actively try to shove their social agenda down the throat of people.
As for Bill Gates, his philantropy is basically a scam. His foundation is a steamroller that crushes existing NGOs and promotes a very narrow vision of charity, which happens to profit him and his cronies immensely. That's hardly a social agenda like the one at Google, it's just more typical Microsoft (embrace extend extinguish).
You want a pull, image-based deployment strategy? Docker.
You want a push, idempotent playbook deployment strategy? Ansible.
You want something heavy that requires a client on each machine, and that requires a central database that poorly scales and that easily gets out of sync? Chef/Puppet.
Of course if you've learned your Devops skills in 2010 and can't be bothered to upgrade yourself, feel free to stick with Chef or Puppet. Or why not Microsoft SCCM or IBM Maximo while you're looking at obsolete junk?
if you were hiring a musician based on them being an ex-Beatle would you be as happy with a Ringo as a John, Paul or George?
Trick question. Do you mean the real Paul McCartney, or the guy they hired to impersonate him after his death and who turned out to be immensely more talented than the real Paul?
I wouldn't hire you without seeing code licensed under an appropriate free software license. I would never hire a proprietary software developer period. You people make me sick. Isn't being paid for your work sufficient? Nothing my company produces will ever be proprietary.
"Donnie, is that you? Your chicken pot pie is getting cold." - Your mom, calling from upstairs
I'd recommend contributing to the Rust programming language project. It is one of the friendliest and most welcoming open source communities I've ever dealt with. Their code of conduct helps ensure it stays a friendly and welcoming project, too. Plus you'll get to collaborate with some of the most talented programmers to have ever lived. Rust is one of those open source projects that can change your life in excellent ways.
What about systemd, the high-quality init system that powers most of today's servers, as indicates the name of its website (freedesktop.org)
1) You won't get caught. The company interviewing you most certainly won't tell the other company that you shared code, and as long as you just show it to the interviewer on your own machine (not give them a file with the code) it won't escape into the wild, so you have nothing to worry about.
2) True, the company you are interviewing for many get a few ideas from what you showed them. But regardless, they would have to code it themselves (see point 1), and secondly, if the original company had management issues like that, it's almost their karma for treating their employees like that (should have trusted them more, in which case they would have stayed and not shared code).
You are the worst possible kind of candidate for a job in IT. No ethics, no pride, no class. Those are not things you can learn, you were simply born with a few missing parts.
You don't belong in IT but you probably have a future in used cars sales or marketing. Time to pivot, my friend, otherwise it won't be long before your name circulates on the informal do-no-hire network.
Slashdot Mirror
Go peddle your trolling nonsense on infowars.
Did you hear more about the content of the DNC emails that were leaked, or about *theories* that Russia had hackers trying to meddle in the election?
And yet, only one of those two things happened for sure. But go on, embrace the conspiracy theory narrative instead of looking at facts. At least now we know that when the liberals lose, they don't just lose the election, they also lose their moral compass and common sense.
The whole mass hysteria about Russia comes from the FUD campaign launched by Clinton to distract people from the fact that she was sending top secret emails in plain text using her own Exchange server instead of using the state department secure infrastructure.
She lost the election, can we stop this idiotic red scare? Russia is a third world country and their "state sponsored" hackers use the same kind of low quality scripts that mafiaboy used to ddos yahoo, let's get real.
And yet the scariest thing is that Obama is a pacifist compared to mainstream American thinking. Both the politicians and, more importantly, the people of America -- who can agree on more money for the military and more aggressive action around the world when they can't agree on anything else.
Actually people are fed up of the constant meddling in other countries affairs, that's one of the reasons why Trump was elected. At least during the campaign MAGA was all about putting foreign policy on the backburner and dealing with crumbling bridges and schools. America first, fuck the TPP, fuck the UN, etc. Not sure to what extent it's actually happening but lots of people want that.
Meh we've had endless discussions and none of the scenarios were really more cost-effective. There's too many packages and products licensed differently, we don't have just one type of workload.
Anyways both the RHEL and MSFT licenses are peanuts compared to the obscene Oracle and IBM licenses. When we get SQL Server on RHEL I will personally fly to wherever the fuck Oracle have their headquarters to take a piss on their logo.
what you end up with are 50,000 geeks all with completely different ideas of what a desktop environment should look like and going off and creating YADE (yet another desktop environment) instead of working together to make the one, true DE better and more usable.
I think that's a strength, not a weakness. Look at Ubuntu; they had this horror called Unity that was basically the Apple philosophy on Linux, a one-size-fits-none GUI that "knew better" than its users and wanted to have a similar experience for everyone, and it has been a huge failure.
You don't succeed in life by adapting your model to be a clone of the competition. You succeed by embracing your identity and providing a real alternative, not a discount runner-up.
As long as people can install free software and customize it the way they want, the Linux desktop is a winner. Let Microsoft worry about market share, who cares.
GNOME 3 has been a colossal disaster.
I use Gnome 3 and it works pretty well. The only customization I did was to install Tweak tools so I could get min/max buttons on the windows and a taskbar on each screen. Other than that everything works well, at least on xorg (I've had a few issues with Java GUI on wayland because of my high resolution monitors).
I've used Cinnamon and KDE but came back to Gnome because it's more stable. I use Fedora, not sure if the Gnome on other distros is broken, but overall I really don't see why some people get their panties in a bunch about Gnome 3.
In any event, if that's what you call a colossal disaster I hope you never have to face actual challenges in your life because you don't seem to have a high threshold for problems.
The next step would be a plan to migrate from the legacy Windows apps over to open source based alternatives.
This is another case where what appears to be common sense doesn't survive contact with reality.
You live in a fantasy if you seriously believe that there's open source alternatives to everything that runs on Windows. Either that, or you're thinking in terms of "checkbox alternative", such as saying that Gnucash is an alternative to Great Plains or Accpacc, discarding the shitload of missing features or the fact that there's complex integrations and a large ecosystem of plugins required to communicate with vendors, partners or other systems.
Here's an example. Many big suppliers won't allow B2B automation unless orders are pushed via AS2 or EDI, and many requires a full-blown GDSN connection. This means that if the city wants to JIT their toilet paper orders instead of paying a fortune in warehousing, they must be able to have their accounting system approve and transmit orders. This requires specialized plugins in products like Sage or Dynamics. You won't find anything to fork on github to deal with that, and even if you were, it would be a terrible idea because the second the protocols or headers change in the B2B schema, you're fucked since dude420@github is not going to give you a clear roadmap in lockstep with what the big suppliers or vendors request.
In an ideal world it would all be web-based and browser-neutral and maybe even SaaS, but given the level of customization required for a large organization, it's still a pipe dream.
We should always consider the TCO and not the sticker price.
At the office we pay roughly $2,500 per hypervisor per year to run RHEL virtual machines, plus a ton of extras (they like to licenses useful things separately, a la Oracle). VMWare license not included, of course.
Retail price for the Microsoft equivalent, Windows Server DataCenter, is a one-time $6,000 fee and that includes Hyper-V, which is nowadays more or less comparable to VMWare. And nobody in the enterprise world pays retail with Microsoft, there's always a huge discount for ELA.
Bottom line, if you want support, Windows is less expensive than RHEL.
I think Oracle Linux is slightly less expensive than RHEL but then you just get CentOS + Oracle drivers so it's not really the same product. Not sure about SLES but I doubt they're cheaper. Last time I checked Ubuntu was $1,500 / yr, but then who wants that in their data centers I wonder.
I don't even think this is a "Microsoft bribe" situation. If you do a quick search about the Accenture report you'll see that the whole thing is a n-ring circus. They didn't simply switch to Linux, they decided to centralize IT at the same time.
IT centralization is always a fuckfest, and now of course they blame Linux for that.
Peter Ganten, a board member of the Open Source Business Alliance, told ZDNet that the organizational problems date back to around 2003, when Munich took the decision to switch to Linux. In parallel with that migration, the council also tried to centralize its IT support structure, getting rid of a system where each department had its own IT team.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/l...
Switching back to Microsoft won't solve this problem, unless they go full cloud with something like Office 365 which would take a big chunk of the infrastructure away from the hands of those incompetents.
Did I just found a wormhole on Slashdot?
Nope, just a wordy systemd troll.
you mean, a person who has to actually deal with systemd in real life, and not just on their Ubuntu dual-boot desktop?
You're right, the Linux guru knows that systemd might keep the server from booting for some fuckall reason if he power cycles it, and it's on with the shoes and coat at 3am as you're off to the data center.
If you experience SERVER problems due to systemd, you can look at the documentation on their website at https://www.freedesktop.org/wi...
freedesktop... every time it makes me chuckle
Even nobel prize winners are trying to make a quick buck from publishing their books, instead of spreading their ideas to a bigger audience free of charge. Definition of irony?
Obama won a Nobel prize for peace, then went on to spend the most money on the military in the history of the USA, on top of vastly expanding NSA spying programs and establishing a formal kill list.
Think I'm kidding?
Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.
Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05...
^ yes, NY times, not breitbart or fox news
It's more hypocrisy than irony, though.
G I V E M E A B R E A K
A bank which requires debt to be paid of reduced world hunger by 40%? Absolutely laughable.
it's not just his bank directly, it's the concept he invented (microcredit).
And it does work. Let's say someone is very poor and tries to make a living selling bottles of water on the street. They buy 10 every day from a grocery store and make a profit of a few cents; it's difficult to sell more because people don't buy warm water and the constant trips to the grocey store to restock is taking a long time. Getting that business to the next level, which would be to sell 50 bottles a day, would require a small plastic cooler. From our perspective it's cheap, maybe $15, but for someone who makes a few cents a day, it could take a long time to save $15. That's where microcredit comes in. The person can now buy a cooler and quintuple their income, which allows them to repay the debt much faster. And then after a while maybe they're ready for a second cooler, or an employee.
There are other forms of microcredit that work too, like "microcredit unions", where a bunch of poor people pool their money and each member of the pool can borrow a larger sum in a round-robin fashion.
It all comes down to leverage. There's a ceiling (or more accurately a chasm) but this kind of financing works.
China is throwing tons of money at worthless projects: cities with no residents, massive investment in research with no accountability for quality, and huge state-sponsored projects that regularly fail - such as bridges and dams.
That kind of comment is somewhere between "hindsight is 20/20" and reversed survival bias. You look at things that failed and ignore those that worked.
The population of Shanghai went from 16 to 24 million people in the last 15 years. That's more than 500,000 newcomers *every year*. Those people need a roof over their head, they need food, they need plumbing and waste management, transportation, etc. And Shanghai is not even among the fastest growing city in China. For instance Zhengzhou went from 3 million to 9 million in 5 years - that's like transforming Phoenix into NYC in 5 years.
And it's not just about the population density. A decade ago, China was importing garbage from the USA to recycle and extract resources. They no longer do that because their industry is catching up; in fact, more and more they don't even bother shipping back containers when they send stuff to the USA, they sell them on the cheap or even trash them. Another sign that they're moving ahead full speed is that the bulk of their industrial capacity goes to the domestic market. The crap you can buy at Walmart is a drop in the bucket compared to the volume they're selling to the new Chinese middle class, which is amazing.
China has been growing at a crazy speed, and mistakes are made here and there, but I'd be curious to see how well you personally would succeed with those kinds of challenges. This is more complicated than playing SimCity.
Like all giant corporations, Facebook/Google/Apple/Microsoft/etc. exist first and foremost to monetize the great unwashed masses. Part of the manipulation required to do that most effectively was convincing them that there was any other goal than that.
I don't think this was true for Facebook, at least initially. Until the "Lean in" lady came in, they were reluctant to build their ad platform to target specific demographics. The general culture before she came in was that Facebook was making money to grow the network and improve the user experience, not the other way around, and budgets were set accordingly (i.e more funding for features and growth, less for monetization opportunities). Now the greedy bunch is in charge of course, as it usually happens when a company becomes successful (the parasites never join while there's still a risk that the company will fail).
I suspect the same thing happened at Google. They brought in the soulless crook and the first thing to go out the window was the "don't be evil" culture.
Philanthropy is only really possible when a market participant has made excessive profit.
just out of curiosity, did you post that comment from a MacBook or other Apple product?
The key figures (Mark Z and Bill G) along with the key corps (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, IBM) I mentioned above, unfortunately, have decided to cramp their little brains with "Social Justice" mantra that takes them further and further away from true enlightenment, and thus, have lost their 'purpose of being'
Don't put them all in the same bucket. All those companies will profess their love of "diversity" because it's trendy, but Google and Facebook stand apart from the others in your list as they actively try to shove their social agenda down the throat of people.
As for Bill Gates, his philantropy is basically a scam. His foundation is a steamroller that crushes existing NGOs and promotes a very narrow vision of charity, which happens to profit him and his cronies immensely. That's hardly a social agenda like the one at Google, it's just more typical Microsoft (embrace extend extinguish).
You want a pull, image-based deployment strategy? Docker.
You want a push, idempotent playbook deployment strategy? Ansible.
You want something heavy that requires a client on each machine, and that requires a central database that poorly scales and that easily gets out of sync? Chef/Puppet.
Of course if you've learned your Devops skills in 2010 and can't be bothered to upgrade yourself, feel free to stick with Chef or Puppet. Or why not Microsoft SCCM or IBM Maximo while you're looking at obsolete junk?
if you were hiring a musician based on them being an ex-Beatle would you be as happy with a Ringo as a John, Paul or George?
Trick question. Do you mean the real Paul McCartney, or the guy they hired to impersonate him after his death and who turned out to be immensely more talented than the real Paul?
Chef/Puppet
2010 called, they want their unreliable, kludgy alternatives to Ansible back.
I wouldn't hire you without seeing code licensed under an appropriate free software license. I would never hire a proprietary software developer period. You people make me sick. Isn't being paid for your work sufficient? Nothing my company produces will ever be proprietary.
"Donnie, is that you? Your chicken pot pie is getting cold."
- Your mom, calling from upstairs
I'd recommend contributing to the Rust programming language project. It is one of the friendliest and most welcoming open source communities I've ever dealt with. Their code of conduct helps ensure it stays a friendly and welcoming project, too. Plus you'll get to collaborate with some of the most talented programmers to have ever lived. Rust is one of those open source projects that can change your life in excellent ways.
What about systemd, the high-quality init system that powers most of today's servers, as indicates the name of its website (freedesktop.org)
Think of it this way:
1) You won't get caught. The company interviewing you most certainly won't tell the other company that you shared code, and as long as you just show it to the interviewer on your own machine (not give them a file with the code) it won't escape into the wild, so you have nothing to worry about.
2) True, the company you are interviewing for many get a few ideas from what you showed them. But regardless, they would have to code it themselves (see point 1), and secondly, if the original company had management issues like that, it's almost their karma for treating their employees like that (should have trusted them more, in which case they would have stayed and not shared code).
You are the worst possible kind of candidate for a job in IT. No ethics, no pride, no class. Those are not things you can learn, you were simply born with a few missing parts.
You don't belong in IT but you probably have a future in used cars sales or marketing. Time to pivot, my friend, otherwise it won't be long before your name circulates on the informal do-no-hire network.
Even as an employee you still own the moral right to your code.
Are you a former Uber employee?
Who's Chris
WE'RE ALL CHRIS