Considering that many people think that peering should be covered by Net Neutrality, yes, that would make bureaucrats in charge of Internet engineering. Even WITH Net Neutrality in place, I do NOT like the FCC getting involved with peering. It would turn business negotiations into government negotiations, and we all know how well that goes.
The FCC has received plenty of complaints about Net Neutrality violations, were any valid?
What example do you have of a company purposely slowing down a peering link? If you're thinking Netflix, that isn't a very good example.
Would you rather have every packet coming into the ISP's network through transit links only?
There is no double dipping. There are two ways to get connectivity for Internet. One way is transit. Transit can be expensive especially for companies like Netflix. Transit is pretty simple, you pay for x-bandwidth or port speed. The other option is to peer. For peering, one company/network pays the destination network to deliver the packet. This is less costly than transit, but the packet's destination must be within the peered network. If the networks have nearly equal traffic between them, then they call it a wash and don't charge the other party. Nothing new here. This is similar to how long distance companies work. When a long distance company couldn't connect the call directly (they didn't own the last mile), they would pay the local exchange to complete the connection. Last mile networks are expensive. Delivering a call or a packet for that last mile is valuable.
Yup. I was referring to the http://www.aredn.org/ project and the http://ocmesh.org/ group which has now expanded to Santa Barbera, Ventura, and Riverside groups.
I consult at a small ISP that uses wireless to connect high rise condos. We even use cable company fiber to connect to transit (not the cable company) downtown. So, this idea that the telco will come in and shut you down is false.
It almost reads like a conspiracy.:) First the local government only allows a couple of companies to provide services. Next make upgrading services as difficult as possible with plenty of regulation. Create a huge incentive for lobbying and corruption. Then when people get upset, the government offers to take over the service themselves for the good of the people. Next up we are shocked, shocked to find that the government is misusing the information against their citizens or political opponents that try to oppose the ruling class.
This is how it is done. Stop complaining about Internet service and build one! There is one in SoCal made by and for ham radio people that is finally getting some momentum. It will connect San Diego to Ventura and Riverside soon. This particular project doesn't connect to the Internet, but it is an example of what can be done with volunteers and without any revenue.
Does it depend on the type of service that is being purchased? Some ISP's only offer a service for end users or companies (can't re-sell). That usually means you have to move up the food chain a bit to get the more open service. Of course that also means it is more costly. I would be surprised that, even in very small towns, that there is only ONE telco for long distance. Once you know which long distance telcos are available, then something can be worked out.
Ooooooooooooooh really? RedHat has dropped million and millions of dollars acquiring software and then they open source it. Seems like they are staying *very* true to their roots.
According to wikipedia, Arch Linux, CoreOS, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Mageia, openSUSE, Red Hat Enterprise Linux/CentOS, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, and Ubuntu all have systemd. Most of those are very recognizable names. So why just pick on RedHat?
I don't think it is doing a kill -9. I suspect it has more to do with making sure it tracks parent/orphan processes correctly by taking advantage of cgroups. So far I haven't had corruption issues. If I had, then I'd blame systemd and it using something like a kill -9 when it wasn't required. But nope, nothing of the sort. It just works. If they made a change by back-peddling, it hasn't impacted me one way or the other.
Lol about RedHat being compared to Windows! You're crazy! I take advantage of the same things with debian and systemd. I don't run into the orphan issue because I'm not running custom noob code at home on my debian boxes.
Unmaintainable? Really? That is a bit over the top.
So far, systemd has made my life easier. The company I work for has written custom daemons. I'm expected to get the software deployed into AWS. It is very easy to whip up a systemd script to manage the software no matter what quirks the software has about running as a daemon. I have also noticed that systemd does a much better job making sure daemons get shutdown. Java programs seemed to be the worst when it came to shutting them down. Systemd gets the job done. Some programs are not the best written daemons, but systemd seems to wrangle them in.
I keep seeing message about systemd causes strange crashes. So far I haven't experienced this. I've been upgrading a personal desktop system since Fedora Core 9. There was a difficult upgrade around Fedora 15 or so (first systemd). But I was able to get the system back into shape.
So why do some people have so many problems with systemd? I dunno. Maybe I just have a ton of experience with RedHat. I started with RedHat 3.0.3. Before that I ran Slackware. That, and maybe I just like to learn. I'm not put off by a glitch here and there. I want to learn why and how something broke. But, again, systemd hasn't broke on me.
Recently I was talking to an electrician that was upgrading the charging ports at a parking structure. He was telling me that only government recognized utilities can meter the electricity (PUC's). Parking garages are getting around the issue by charging a higher flat rate for parking in a spot with a charging station. They also have NFC cards to turn on the charging stations for people that are paying extra for the spot. The thing is, in a commercial building, the employer is usually paying for the spot. This creates a bit of an issue because it incentives people to charge their cars only at work when the grid is in high demand instead of at home when the demand is lower at night. The told me there is a company called Freedom (you'll have to look it up). That is making grid aware charging stations that will turn off the stations during high demand grid. That is when the fun really begins! The charging stations will turn off the power automatically and people can't override it by grabbing the wire in the next space over.
With paper, the tree is crushed. Why would you need a large straight tree for that? Economics re-enforces this. You're not going to pay extra for a large tree just to crush it
What? Have you even been to an active paper company forest?
Yup! My cousins used to cut trees for the paper mills.
It wouldn't make any sense to take a nice large, straight tree and turn it into paper of any sort. If you need a roof or wall, you have to start with a large straight tree. With paper, the tree is crushed. Why would you need a large straight tree for that? Economics re-enforces this. You're not going to pay extra for a large tree just to crush it
It amazes me that people think they are saving a tree when they don't use paper. I highly doubt they have even seen what kind of trees paper is made from. When I explain this, people usually tell me, "That makes sense." Of course it does!
This reminds me of the Mike Rowe's TED talk about how a lot of people talk about things they think they know. Until a person actually tries sheep farming, they really don't know a thing. I ask my dad (grew up on a farm) about the subject Mike Rowe covered in his talk, and sure enough, he knew about it.
Also of note, the abstract mentions that the number of trees has been too low in previous estimates. I wonder how this new estimate will change climate/CO2 modeling:
"This map reveals that the global number of trees is approximately 3.04 trillion, an order of magnitude higher than the previous estimate."
What Microsoft turned WBEM into is a monstrosity. WBEM was just supposed to be an enhancement of SNMP. Instead of key/value type system, it allows real parameters to be sent to the remote system. But then, Microsoft. And now Microsoft is abusing it even more with DSC! WBEM was never intended to do some link DSC. What RedHat is doing with WBEM is exactly what it is supposed to be used for.
RHEL has a solution for this now. It is called Software Collections and the Developer Toolset. A developer can use latest Python, but the base system still uses the "stable" packages. All of this is still packaged as rpms, so the same management tools still apply. Note that the support cycle is much shorter for packages in the Software collections, but it is easy enough to take upstream and use the.spec file to roll your own.
That, right there, makes RedHat worth the price for some environments. We have a CI?CD pipeline and we want to know that not much will change underneath our code because it is constantly pushing out to production. RedHat is super stable for this purpose.
Based on what you just described, Fedora > RHEL sounds much more sane. Although RedHat can't control every aspect of Fedora, they do share a lot of resources. And much of what is in Fedora finds its way into RHEL.
Which projects are 'not invented here' by RedHat? I suppose you could argue that buying iPlanet/Sun LDAP server is a rejection of OpenLDAP, but at the same time, they were trying to build something much more comprehensive. The fruits of that purchase is FreeIPA. FreeIPA is awesome.
They are also trying to introduce a proper management layer using WBEM. But it doesn't stop at just installing an OSS WBEM server. They are building out an entire management interface which in turn requires them to write more providers. Not invented here? There isn't really anything out there, so they are making it themselves. All opensource.
So beyond RedHat contributing to a ton of existing projects, they are building things (hard things), not only to make a better distro, but things that help the entire Linux universe. But hey, Ubuntu is making Mir. So there is that.
Is Gnome 3 that controversial anymore? I thought Unity surpassed it in controversy.
I've been running RedHat/Fedora since 4.0.4, so as far as I can tell, RedHat has never left my desktop. One box has been updated for each release since RedHat 9. That included switching to x86_64 when I replaced the motherboard, but kept the HDD.
RHEL has good 3rd party support for when you need it. RedHat also spends a lot of work and money on compliance testing (e.g. Common Criteria and SCAP). This helps out with HIPAA and PCI regulation. It helps fill out that little check box so we all can get back to worrying about real security. I personally use RedHat's IdM (which is really FreeIPA). FreeIPA is awesome.
40% ain't bad for CentOS/RHEL. I'm a bit surprised that Debian, which Ubuntu is based on, has fallen so far.
Ubuntu is a fine distro, I just don't like the company and the leadership. RHEL is a fine distro, but it purposely has a slower update cadence. I love the RedHat company and how committed they are to OSS. Everything they buy (and they've spent a lot on acquisitions over the years), they open source.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that many people think that peering should be covered by Net Neutrality, yes, that would make bureaucrats in charge of Internet engineering. Even WITH Net Neutrality in place, I do NOT like the FCC getting involved with peering. It would turn business negotiations into government negotiations, and we all know how well that goes.
The FCC has received plenty of complaints about Net Neutrality violations, were any valid?
What example do you have of a company purposely slowing down a peering link? If you're thinking Netflix, that isn't a very good example.
Would you rather have every packet coming into the ISP's network through transit links only?
There is no double dipping. There are two ways to get connectivity for Internet. One way is transit. Transit can be expensive especially for companies like Netflix. Transit is pretty simple, you pay for x-bandwidth or port speed. The other option is to peer. For peering, one company/network pays the destination network to deliver the packet. This is less costly than transit, but the packet's destination must be within the peered network. If the networks have nearly equal traffic between them, then they call it a wash and don't charge the other party. Nothing new here. This is similar to how long distance companies work. When a long distance company couldn't connect the call directly (they didn't own the last mile), they would pay the local exchange to complete the connection. Last mile networks are expensive. Delivering a call or a packet for that last mile is valuable.
Yup. I was referring to the http://www.aredn.org/ project and the http://ocmesh.org/ group which has now expanded to Santa Barbera, Ventura, and Riverside groups.
It is an example of how to do it, I didn't say that the particular network could work as an ISP. In fact, the network doesn't offer Internet access.
I consult at a small ISP that uses wireless to connect high rise condos. We even use cable company fiber to connect to transit (not the cable company) downtown. So, this idea that the telco will come in and shut you down is false.
It almost reads like a conspiracy. :) First the local government only allows a couple of companies to provide services. Next make upgrading services as difficult as possible with plenty of regulation. Create a huge incentive for lobbying and corruption. Then when people get upset, the government offers to take over the service themselves for the good of the people. Next up we are shocked, shocked to find that the government is misusing the information against their citizens or political opponents that try to oppose the ruling class.
This is how it is done. Stop complaining about Internet service and build one! There is one in SoCal made by and for ham radio people that is finally getting some momentum. It will connect San Diego to Ventura and Riverside soon. This particular project doesn't connect to the Internet, but it is an example of what can be done with volunteers and without any revenue.
Does it depend on the type of service that is being purchased? Some ISP's only offer a service for end users or companies (can't re-sell). That usually means you have to move up the food chain a bit to get the more open service. Of course that also means it is more costly. I would be surprised that, even in very small towns, that there is only ONE telco for long distance. Once you know which long distance telcos are available, then something can be worked out.
Exactly! Not only that, but why would we want that? It is the worse possible solution for the government to own and operate a communications network.
Ooooooooooooooh really? RedHat has dropped million and millions of dollars acquiring software and then they open source it. Seems like they are staying *very* true to their roots.
According to wikipedia, Arch Linux, CoreOS, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Mageia, openSUSE, Red Hat Enterprise Linux/CentOS, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, and Ubuntu all have systemd. Most of those are very recognizable names. So why just pick on RedHat?
Do did Debian and Ubuntu.... your point?
I don't think it is doing a kill -9. I suspect it has more to do with making sure it tracks parent/orphan processes correctly by taking advantage of cgroups. So far I haven't had corruption issues. If I had, then I'd blame systemd and it using something like a kill -9 when it wasn't required. But nope, nothing of the sort. It just works. If they made a change by back-peddling, it hasn't impacted me one way or the other.
Lol about RedHat being compared to Windows! You're crazy! I take advantage of the same things with debian and systemd. I don't run into the orphan issue because I'm not running custom noob code at home on my debian boxes.
Unmaintainable? Really? That is a bit over the top.
So far, systemd has made my life easier. The company I work for has written custom daemons. I'm expected to get the software deployed into AWS. It is very easy to whip up a systemd script to manage the software no matter what quirks the software has about running as a daemon. I have also noticed that systemd does a much better job making sure daemons get shutdown. Java programs seemed to be the worst when it came to shutting them down. Systemd gets the job done. Some programs are not the best written daemons, but systemd seems to wrangle them in.
I keep seeing message about systemd causes strange crashes. So far I haven't experienced this. I've been upgrading a personal desktop system since Fedora Core 9. There was a difficult upgrade around Fedora 15 or so (first systemd). But I was able to get the system back into shape.
So why do some people have so many problems with systemd? I dunno. Maybe I just have a ton of experience with RedHat. I started with RedHat 3.0.3. Before that I ran Slackware. That, and maybe I just like to learn. I'm not put off by a glitch here and there. I want to learn why and how something broke. But, again, systemd hasn't broke on me.
Recently I was talking to an electrician that was upgrading the charging ports at a parking structure. He was telling me that only government recognized utilities can meter the electricity (PUC's). Parking garages are getting around the issue by charging a higher flat rate for parking in a spot with a charging station. They also have NFC cards to turn on the charging stations for people that are paying extra for the spot. The thing is, in a commercial building, the employer is usually paying for the spot. This creates a bit of an issue because it incentives people to charge their cars only at work when the grid is in high demand instead of at home when the demand is lower at night. The told me there is a company called Freedom (you'll have to look it up). That is making grid aware charging stations that will turn off the stations during high demand grid. That is when the fun really begins! The charging stations will turn off the power automatically and people can't override it by grabbing the wire in the next space over.
With paper, the tree is crushed. Why would you need a large straight tree for that? Economics re-enforces this. You're not going to pay extra for a large tree just to crush it
What? Have you even been to an active paper company forest?
Yup! My cousins used to cut trees for the paper mills.
It is largely true. But, in other words, what is stated in the article about toilet paper is a lie. She doesn't know what she is talking about.
It wouldn't make any sense to take a nice large, straight tree and turn it into paper of any sort. If you need a roof or wall, you have to start with a large straight tree. With paper, the tree is crushed. Why would you need a large straight tree for that? Economics re-enforces this. You're not going to pay extra for a large tree just to crush it
It amazes me that people think they are saving a tree when they don't use paper. I highly doubt they have even seen what kind of trees paper is made from. When I explain this, people usually tell me, "That makes sense." Of course it does!
This reminds me of the Mike Rowe's TED talk about how a lot of people talk about things they think they know. Until a person actually tries sheep farming, they really don't know a thing. I ask my dad (grew up on a farm) about the subject Mike Rowe covered in his talk, and sure enough, he knew about it.
Also of note, the abstract mentions that the number of trees has been too low in previous estimates. I wonder how this new estimate will change climate/CO2 modeling:
"This map reveals that the global number of trees is approximately 3.04 trillion, an order of magnitude higher than the previous estimate."
What Microsoft turned WBEM into is a monstrosity. WBEM was just supposed to be an enhancement of SNMP. Instead of key/value type system, it allows real parameters to be sent to the remote system. But then, Microsoft. And now Microsoft is abusing it even more with DSC! WBEM was never intended to do some link DSC. What RedHat is doing with WBEM is exactly what it is supposed to be used for.
RHEL has a solution for this now. It is called Software Collections and the Developer Toolset. A developer can use latest Python, but the base system still uses the "stable" packages. All of this is still packaged as rpms, so the same management tools still apply. Note that the support cycle is much shorter for packages in the Software collections, but it is easy enough to take upstream and use the .spec file to roll your own.
That, right there, makes RedHat worth the price for some environments. We have a CI?CD pipeline and we want to know that not much will change underneath our code because it is constantly pushing out to production. RedHat is super stable for this purpose.
Based on what you just described, Fedora > RHEL sounds much more sane. Although RedHat can't control every aspect of Fedora, they do share a lot of resources. And much of what is in Fedora finds its way into RHEL.
Which projects are 'not invented here' by RedHat? I suppose you could argue that buying iPlanet/Sun LDAP server is a rejection of OpenLDAP, but at the same time, they were trying to build something much more comprehensive. The fruits of that purchase is FreeIPA. FreeIPA is awesome.
They are also trying to introduce a proper management layer using WBEM. But it doesn't stop at just installing an OSS WBEM server. They are building out an entire management interface which in turn requires them to write more providers. Not invented here? There isn't really anything out there, so they are making it themselves. All opensource.
So beyond RedHat contributing to a ton of existing projects, they are building things (hard things), not only to make a better distro, but things that help the entire Linux universe. But hey, Ubuntu is making Mir. So there is that.
Is Gnome 3 that controversial anymore? I thought Unity surpassed it in controversy.
I've been running RedHat/Fedora since 4.0.4, so as far as I can tell, RedHat has never left my desktop. One box has been updated for each release since RedHat 9. That included switching to x86_64 when I replaced the motherboard, but kept the HDD.
RHEL has good 3rd party support for when you need it. RedHat also spends a lot of work and money on compliance testing (e.g. Common Criteria and SCAP). This helps out with HIPAA and PCI regulation. It helps fill out that little check box so we all can get back to worrying about real security. I personally use RedHat's IdM (which is really FreeIPA). FreeIPA is awesome.
40% ain't bad for CentOS/RHEL. I'm a bit surprised that Debian, which Ubuntu is based on, has fallen so far.
Ubuntu is a fine distro, I just don't like the company and the leadership. RHEL is a fine distro, but it purposely has a slower update cadence. I love the RedHat company and how committed they are to OSS. Everything they buy (and they've spent a lot on acquisitions over the years), they open source.