Why are these solutions always using NFS?
I'm asking out of curiosity, not judgement.
I've looked for a solution to write many small files fast (safely). Think about cloning thr Linux kernel git repo.
Whatever I tested, the NFS protocol was always a bottleneck.
We choose NFS purely because it's the fastest way to get broad compatibility with most operating systems (NFSv3, for example is supported on both Linux and Windows). However, I have great news for you! We're simultaneously working on a custom protocol (over FUSE today) that is going to solve the small file problem for things like cloning the Linux kernel git repo. You can actually see in our demo video (https://youtu.be/xh1q5p7E4JY?feature=shared&t=170) that we untar the Linux kernel on Regatta in under 12 seconds. We're hopeful that this performance makes file storage useful for a broader set of workloads.
Idea:
An AI site that fronts as a "let me roast your idea" kind of thing, but really it collects good startup ideas
Roast:
Oh, great! An AI that doubles as both a roast master and a covert corporate spy. Because nothing screams innovation like tricking people into giving you free startup ideas while they think they're being witty. What's next, an AI that writes breakup texts and then sells relationship advice to the dumped?
Pros:
Can potentially gather a lot of unique and diverse startup ideas.
Entertaining for users who enjoy roasts and humor.
Low overhead costs, AI can handle large volumes of input.
Cons:
Ethically questionable - users are unaware their ideas are being collected.
Trust issues - once users find out the real purpose, they'll likely avoid the service, and brand reputation will tank.
Limited longevity - novelty wears off quickly, and there's a finite amount of genuinely good ideas out there.
Alternative Idea:
Create an AI-powered brainstorming platform where users openly and willingly share startup ideas. They can get feedback from the AI and other users, and maybe even earn rewards or recognition. Transparency is key; don't be sneaky if you want sustained engagement.
I'm not trying to annoy, I swear. I am using Alacritty for a few years. With tmux config that is moving with me for +- 8 years, except for speed of a terminal emulator, I can't understand the difference between them (other than iTerm2 which is nice but has way too many features)
wezterm has a unique great feature of programmable configuration (lua), which allows (among many things) to have custom keybindings depending on the foreground process, then there is also some keybinding modality (in Contour as well), then some have quick command panels, then there are various levels of tab support, then there are a bunch of other UI improvement...
But if iTerm2 has too many features, implying you don't care that much about them, you might not be invested enough to learn about the difference (there are many little things and not a great comparison of various terminals for an easy read)
Your terminal emulator is one of the most security sensitive things you use. Sudo password? SSH keys? logs? A lot goes through your terminal, so I think about 5 times before trying out new terminals.
The major reason I switched from iTerm to Alicritty is the config. I use cmd as my tmux key. This was really annoying to get working in iTerm and was brittle. It required all of macos overrides, iTerms overrides, Tmux config, and Karabiner Elements to get it how I liked it. With Alacritty, it's all done with a clean Alacritty config and a couple of macos-level overrides (I use cmd-q and cmd-h differently in Terminal). Also, the vim+tmux combo is noticeably faster in Alacritty. I'm very interested in Contour.
> The major reason I switched from iTerm to Alacritty is the config.
Exactly the same for me! My terminal config *must* be in version control. But iTerm2 keeps it in some sort of Apple Plist crap. It has a "dynamic JSON profile" feature but it's hard to use correctly.
Switching to Alacritty from iTerm2 has been fantastic; I don't miss anything. I don't use tabs; I use tmux. I need an OS-wide "hotkey" but a few lines of hammerspoon seem to do that perfectly.
It depends what kinds of things you find compelling but I would guess probably nothing if you haven't already been sucked into the terminal emulator rabbit hole. iTerm2 and gnome terminal are both perfectly functional for 100% of the tasks you will actually need them for.
Good point. I share my shell config between Linux and macOS so my UX is mostly the same. Gnome-terminal and iTerm2 act similarly enough that it doesn't really bother me moving between the two.
alacritty's configurability is incredibly good, also the scrolling and crispness in rendering is a godsend, particularly if you're a heavy user or even just do long tails.
I like native tabs so that I can compartmentalize multiple tmux sessions. Alacritty with tabs would be perfect. Kitty seems to be that - but it’s got some oddities of it’s own.
> I like native tabs so that I can compartmentalize multiple tmux sessions. Alacritty with tabs would be perfect. Kitty seems to be that - but it’s got some oddities of it’s own.
I've looked for a solution to write many small files fast (safely). Think about cloning thr Linux kernel git repo. Whatever I tested, the NFS protocol was always a bottleneck.
reply