Why not both? We use vagrant to create our docker environment - a 3 machine CoreOS cluster. This is so we accurately represent our production environment.
We then use our production docker image(s) with some more development appropriate configuration options. Vagrant mounts the user's home directory at /Users/<username>/ inside the CoreOS machines. Then we mount the appropriate folder inside the docker container at where the container would normally expect to find the app's code. This way the developers have live updates without having to rebuild the docker image or anything.
I have been reading that Vagrant provides a out-of-the-box support for docker after version 1.7. So, it seems this will be easier, and with an obvious case for Windows or Mac.
I am already on Linux, so, my question is why create extra abstraction to it? Is not the function of docker to provide isolation as Vagrant but without the extra overhead of VM. As far as I could gather, one prominent use cases of Docker is the cheapness. Would not doing Docker on top of Vagrant beat that purpose?
We do something similar (though Ubuntu not CoreOS). The obvious advantage is you get to leverage all the work you did setting up docker for deployment and you have a development env that much more closely matches production.
The downside is it feels like a lot of layers of abstraction. And I haven't quite figured out the right way to hook up e.g. the PyCharm debugger to a python interpreter running in a container that's running inside a VM.
It's not as many countries, but with 3 you can get unlimited data at a fraction of the cost (I currently pay £15/month with 3 for unlimited data, 5000 3 to 3 minutes, 5000 texts and 2000 minutes to other networks).
Likewise, although I'm finding that Telstra throttles me quite a lot. Turns out you can use any network in Australia (with no roaming fee from 3), so I've manually switched to Optus and my speed has dramatically increased.
Looks interesting but seems to be lacking a bit in the mobile number lookup department. The current service we use for mobile numbers can provide:
- Is the phone number not only valid in terms of syntax but a number actually registered to a subscriber?
- Is the subscriber currently connected to the network? (Normally indicates if their phone is switched on or off with the exception of not having a signal)
- Has the phone number or subscriber been barred or blacklisted in any way?
- Network that the number originally belonged to
- Network that the number is currently registered with. For example if they ported their number from another provider this will be different from the network the number originally belonged to.
- Network that the subscriber is currently connected to. So say if you were roaming in a different country this would return the network the phone is currently roaming on. Can be used to see if someone is out of the country.
This works mostly worldwide with a few exceptions. In a few countries we can actually determine if you are on a prepay or contract plan as well.
Yeah, I don't even know how that would be possible unless it's owned by one of the phone companies and is only available for their users. I highly doubt any telco would share that data publicly, especially if all you need is the subscriber's number.
This is likely done with something called an HLR lookup via SS7. I believe it was explained to me that HLR lookups are meant for call setup and SMS routing, NOT for exposing network information via web services, but that doesn't stop companies with SS7 access from doing it anyway since there are plenty of people willing to pay for that information.
I like the approach taken by Nominet (.uk domain registry). If you are an individual and you're not trading via your website you can hide your personal details from whois. However, companies and trading individuals have to display it.
Chrome has different SSL validation on each operating system - on Linux it uses it's own NSS instance, on OS X and Windows it uses the OS level certificate validation routines. Not sure how HSTS plays into that.
It claims to support Chip & PIN (EMV) but I don't see how this works. EMV is designed so that you can't clone a card and in practice is it impractical to attempt to clone a card that uses EMV.
The only way I could imagine it would work is if you have the support of the bank that issued the card. However, I doubt any bank would agree to a scheme to allow a 3rd party to generate a clone of an EMV card.
Agreed, if they did it would seem that this is a card cloner's wet dream. Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see how it is possible to support Chip and Pin without proving the system is broken.