"Docker" is just the userspace component of a Linux kernel feature. "Docker" doesn't run anything, the kernel does.
Podman has three main advantages over docker: Not needing to run as root, not requiring a daemon in the background and being packaged directly by linux distros.
Not so much the distros part, it's not in the latest Ubuntu 20.04 LTS unlike Docker. It's landed in the development branch of Debian though so maybe someday.
(Granted Docker is only in Ubuntu's "universe" section and not as a supported package that would receive security patches etc)
1. systemd runs as root, doesn't bother me that docker daemon does as well, since they do similar things (for me). Only users with access to the socket file have access.
2. I like the idea of not having a daemon but never actually had a problem with this in practice. The daemon has never crashed on me. systemd also has daemons that have also never crashed on me.
3. It's like 3 lines to install the official docker package. This is a non-issue for me.
Those do not sound like very meaningful advantages. Certainly not significant enough for me to want to switch from something that Just Works.
Thanks for the reply though. I'll be sticking with Docker.
The actual advantage of Podman and Buildah is that it is not Docker. Because of the tribal nature of tech communities, that is a desirable property for members of the "anti-Docker" tribe. Everything else is an exercise in retroactively justifying a subjective decision with seemingly objective criteria.
If you don't understand why others are so excited about those tools, it simply means that you're not part of their tribe.
Podman when not run as root has some significant drawbacks (e.g. containers can't communicate with each other). That's not specific to podman it's just hard to do without root.
Podman has long running processes as well, there's a podman process that'll run once you've launched at least one containner, and a conmon for each container (equivalent to containerd-shim)
Packaged directly... it is by RH and SUSE, don't think by debian/ubuntu. At least for ubuntu, 20.04 packages Docker 19.03 just fine.
Containers within the same pod can certainly communicate with each other without root? I'm running that setup right now for my graylog container and it's mongo and elastic search dependencies
Within the same pod sure, they share the same netns. I was talking about individual container comms.
With rootless podman they use slirp4netns and all get the same IP, with rootful podman or Docker a bridge network is established so that containers that aren't in the same pod can communicate with each other.
This is done as a regular user with special rights on the system; all that is required are entries for yrro within /etc/subuid and /etc/subgid. There's no equivalent of Docker's daemon that hands out root on the machine to anyone who can connect to its socket.
Cut out the middle man. They don’t require the Docker daemon for one, which isn’t necessary. The client/server socket interface is the wrong model, the posix userland and filesystem interfaces to the kernel are a much better fit.
Not running as root, for one. There are also many other advantages, such as decoupling the building from the running, and running rootfs tarballs directly, blah blah blah.
It's really up to us citizens that benefited from his whistleblowing to bail him out. But of course we don't because we're not as good a society as we might be.
Could you elaborate? His revelations were that the government kinda does what it wants despite the law; what is it that is up to me (or any other individual) to right the wrongs of that same government?
Any democratic government is simply a body elected to represent the wishes of the people.
If the government isn't righting its wrongs, it's because you (not necessarily you specifically, but "the people" as a whole) have explicitly put in power the people who are doing the bad things.
This is everybody's fault. Yours included. We all enabled this to happen.
That's the beauty of a democratic system. It clarifies and cuts through to the core of our culture. Americans fear the idea of foreign terrorists more than we fear privacy encroachment, and thus, we were delivered the results of that belief.
The system worked! It represented our wishes perfectly. The problem isn't "them" (the government). It's us.
That may have been true for Americans living two hundred years ago when constituents voted for the people who birthed the two party system, but it certainly isn't today. Gerrymandering of House districts, the limit on the number of Representatives, the nature of the Senate in our bicameral legislature, and the electoral college all guarantee that some votes will count significantly more than others. That's not a democracy, it's a facade that replaced democracy a long time ago (and one could argue was never a democracy to begin with, since many people alive today gained the right to vote in living memory).
There's two options when your government isn't doing what you (read "the people") want them to do:
1) Vote them out
2) Revolution
I'm rather a firm believer that option 1 is still on the table and we don't have to resort to likely bloody methods. But in either case it is up to the people in the end. I am not convinced that there's been coalitions formed to actually do #1. I'm not actually convinced most people are upset, even though I think they should be.
Still on us though. Unless we want to see the nation invaded, there really is no one else with standing to address the growing problem.
A class level action is needed. When things reach clearly, can't miss it, can't live with it levels of unacceptable, we may see that happen.
Or, maybe we see just enough placating and theatre to trundle along for decades.
Last time we moved like that, it was the 30's.
People struck the crap out of basically everyone, handing FDR position to go and get the New Deal done. Those strikes and actions were illegal and legal. A whole class in high solidarity acting right out.
His follow on was never seriously discussed and in the decades since, we have seen many moves to prevent a similar scenario from happening again.
What we do not know is whether that history can be repeated.
They are clearly reading Federalist 10 out of context. He clearly says, among other things, there is a mean between to little representation vs to much.
> It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects.
A democracy doesn't have representation. So while his definition maybe different than what we tend to understand today, neither is he arguing that "republic" is the same as what we mean by "democracy" today.
Didn't realize that it wasn't sourced to him. I still think it's a good quote either way and given my understanding of Franklin from reading his autobiography, I reckon he would agree with it in spirit. He spent much of his life pushing against the British Empire and fighting for liberty.
It's hard for me to read the article you linked and draw any conclusions whatsoever about his motives. The whole article is just a series of vague insinuations hoping the reader is stupid enough and lacking in enough critical thinking skills to see two apparently contradictory facts like "he liked attention but played a lot of video games" and from there jump to the conclusion that he's a villain.
How many citizens outside of people who understand tech actually understand how big of a deal it was? Also, the media hardly covered it and pretty much presented him as a traitor every time they did. What percent of the U.S. population would you guess has heard of the name Edward Snowden?
I think it's worse than that. The things Snowden leaked were simply the details of what I would think most people assumed to be true anyway. Not in a conspiracy theory way, but just an accepted thing. Most people don't really know the difference and supposed limitations of each three letter agency's powers.
Whether that's due to the media's portrail of them in film and TV over the years with their omnipotent powers or just the view that the government is an all seeing entity.
So in most people's view he just leaked the governments methods, not the fact they were doing it (and abusin their power in doing so). Because of this the Government can spin this as him leaking their secret sauce rather than them being in the wrong.
A high percentage of Americans are informed by domestic "news" and that newstainment has declared Snowden to be the bad guy as you said.
Among ordinary people not into politics and or tech, few know his name. If they do, they almost always also talk about him being a traitor, threat, etc.
Snowden disclosed programs that were unsavoury to some. But that doesn’t mean they’re illegal (even if only by reason of black letter law technicality). That’s not to mention all the other unrelated classified information. It’s not surprising that he has zero defence under whistleblower laws.
To take advantage of whistleblower laws (or at least, gain public sympathy as one), the criminality you’re uncovering would need to be far, far worse.
See this for one recent decision indicating that the NSA bulk collection program was both constitutional and legal.
The unfortunate reality is that it falls into a legal grey area and has, in fact, been held by certain courts to be legal.
Which comes back to my original point - any whistleblower who wants to exit with a clean slate really needs to be uncovering unambiguously and horrendously illegal activity. “Possibly illegal” PRISM just wasn’t bad enough for Snowden to get the political or legal protection of public sympathy.
Damn, that’s crazy. Thanks for sharing this article.
> Which comes back to my original point - any whistleblower who wants to exit with a clean slate really needs to be uncovering unambiguously and horrendously illegal activity.
The issue here is that nothing will ever be “unambiguous and horrendous illegal” enough regarding NSA behaviors, given that the goal post is always moving.
Almost everyone who has worked really hard to be great at something has an ego about it. In most cases, they really wanted to be better than (often some specific) others.
To pick some well know people, I'd say Feynman and Einstein both had massive egos. They "knew" they were smart. They also had reputations for being really nice and humble.
It would be simpler to just admit that you think DJB is a bit of a jerk. Linus Torvalds is a bit of a jerk too, in most people's estimation. Brilliant jerks, we call them.
They can make great workers and are always terrible leaders.
There’s a big difference between self-assessed qualifications, and ability to admit fallibility. Good scientists know they know a lot. Great scientists know that they don’t know a lot, and admitting that you might be wrong is critical for the scientific method to work.
So DJB is brilliant, but if he admitted that he could make mistakes (or even that a compiled could mis-compile his flawless code), then he might have put in failsafes like unreachable code assertions that would have meant that we wouldn’t be discussing this today.
I don’t think he’s a jerk. I don’t know enough about him; maybe he’s the nicest, kindest guy around. I do think the evidence suggests that he’s arrogant, though, and that’s not a good look on anyone.
Joe Rogan is surprisingly greedy. The man has been rich for decades, doesn't need money at all, and yet he's been selling crappy snakeoil products for years, and now he's selling out wholesale. He's taking a boatload of money to kill his show. Maybe he's just tired and this seems like a smart way to end it...
Sadly he just doesn't seem to be up to the challenge of seizing his role in history anyway. He could be someone that bridges the left/right political divide. He's the closest we have right now, but just not up to it.
There is a deep desire in the US for someone almost like Joe Rogan. Just like there is a deep desire for someone almost like Bernie Sanders. Or even someone almost like Donald Trump.
I consider these people the first wave of Great Internet Personalities. And just like the first pancake, they're not quite right.
We're living in a Bizzaro World for now. I'm eagerly looking forward to the second wave of Great Internet Personalities.
Does the Rift S send its camera feeds to the PC for controller tracking or does it do it onboard and send the tracked controller locations?
Perhaps the onboard hardware is capable of controller tracking as sold, but not powerful enough to enable Quest-style hand tracking. What if in addition to that, the camera data for one reason or another can't be piped over USB to the computer, either because it's missing the hardware that would do the encoding, or because there isn't enough bandwidth on the cable?
As I recall, the original Rift's outside-in tracking was extremely picky about having separate USB 3 ports for each of its tracking cameras, to the point where if you had a three-camera setup it didn't even want them on ports handled by the same USB controller on the motherboard.
Now we're saying "The Rift-S has five cameras and it's connected to the computer, surely it can just let the computer process that data." I doubt it's that easy.
Consider the fact that the Rift-S has been out of stock for months. Oculus continues to re-stock the Quest (which sells out within 24h), but we haven't seen a restock of the Rift-S in probably 3 months?
Their "Del Mar" which is coming up, is very likely not going to be a tethered headset. My money is it will be standalone like the Quest.
Oculus is trying to get the masses to adopt VR and I salute them for it. There will always be headsets like the Valve index for enthusiasts.
I think it's a smart play. Standalone VR makes it incredibly more accessible. Everyone with a Quest does the same thing, they cart it around to parties and gatherings to let people experience VR and it's a blast. Even if this wasn't intentional marketing it's the best strategy for getting the word out. I'm hoping the Del Mar is a big upgrade, if it can bring better processing and better resolution to the table hopefully with a killer feature like adaptive focus and gaze tracking then I think it'll just knock it out of the park. Regardless though it's only a matter of time until all our screens are virtual.
I mean, going forward, given the existence of Link (and that Link surprisingly actually works), there is very little reason for the Rift S to exist at all; it sucks that they sold it to people and then so quickly obsoleted it by another product that came out at the same time and cost the same amount, but other than the feeling of responsibility for those customers I can't imagine any reason for them to spend any time at all on that device line: that use case is now Quest Link; if they built and sold more of them they would just be digging themselves a deeper liability hole of more limited devices they don't want to support.
Linus Tech Tips did a pretty damn good review of the Quest + Link solution. At the time he did the review, it looked like it had some very strange black bar artifacts when turning your head quickly, which the Rift-S did not. He also described it having a slight lag in the controls.
These kinds of things are likely non-issues for your average gamer who isn't moving really fast, and isn't requiring ultra precise controls. For some people though, it's a huge deal breaker.
I'm personally very grateful for both Valve and Oculus. Oculus is serving the mass market, and doing a great job of it. I just hope in the process, we don't lose the high end consumer gear like Valve Index.
How long ago was that? The Quest link cable stuff is still in flux. Not only did they just announce a few days ago that any USB 2.0 cable should now work[1], but they note in that article that Carmack is hoping to add a new mode to take advantage of the higher bandwidth of USB 3.1.
It's entirely possible if that Linux Tech Tips review was more than a month or two ago, things might look considerably different now.
I know, it sure seems like he has a lot of skill and institutional knowledge to contribute. That said, I'm not sure what his current involvement is, I just know they referenced him in that article.
By that argument aren't the controllers experiencing more latency on RiftS than Quest already? I realize there is more post-processing with hand tracking, but given that it already experiences the latency of having to process the control actions... not really sure how this could affect it that much.
Also, you could argue the hand tracking calculations could be done faster on a PC, so even if there is some perceived latency it could balance out or be better... would really need numbers for all of this, but it does just seem very suspect that they are trying to push more things on the Quest intentionally..
What severance is being offered to the employees being laid off? Is it up to the high ethical standard set by Airbnb?
Separated [Airbnb] employees will receive 14 weeks of pay, and one more week for each year served at the company (rounding partial years up). The firm is also dropping its one-year equity cliff so that employees who are laid off with under 12 months of tenure can buy their vested options; Airbnb will also provide 12 months of health insurance through COBRA in the United States, and health care coverage through 2020 in the rest of the world.
Is shorter or zero severance unethical? We all enter into this employment contract knowing it could end abruptly from either party. If money is tight, they could afford longer severances for all if they cut 4000 instead. Does that not seem unethical toward the extra 1000 cut?
Regardless of legality and what the parties agreed to contractually, the fact remains that abrupt termination with zero severance is harmful for the former employee, especially in this economic climate. If the corporation pays a generous severance, the harm is reduced or eliminated. On a scale of ethicality, the more harmful an action is, the less ethical it is, so yes, paying severance is more ethical than not paying severance.
I find the terms "less and more" applied to ethical confusing. Telling a company to harm people a little instead of a lot is enabling.
My use of ethical here is strongly tied to obligation. e.g., it is kind to give money to a person, but not unethical if you chose not to especially if you can't afford to.
The way I understand you is that it's kinder/more sympathetic to provide a greater severance. This part I agree with!
Severance is not free, though. Increasing it will either cost Uber more heads or greater risk (and more heads later). I'm repeating this question: Is this not unethical to the retained employees?
Providing a former spouse with alimony money is not generosity. Neither is providing a former employee with severance money generosity. In both cases, the ethics are incredibly obvious.
The fact that alimony is required and severance is not is simply a matter of a corrupt (US) political system. This system leaves it to individual CEOs to act ethically (or not) and the public to judge them.
We can improve the ethics of tech companies by holding them to account for how they behave. One way to do that is judging their behavior during layoffs.
A lot of companies don't have a public image because nobody knows or cares what they do. So they have nothing to fear from a few bad glassdoor reviews.
