Imitation is the highest form of flattery! Obviously there was demand for an alternative to Docker that was native to the Red Hat platform. We couldn't offer that (although we tried in the early days) so it made sense that they would.
In the early days we tried very hard to accommodate their needs, for example by implementing support for devicemapper as an alternative to aufs. I remember spending many hours in their Boston office whiteboarding solutions. But we soon realized our priorities were fundamentally at odds: they cared most about platform lock-in, and we cared most about platform independence. There was also a cultural issue: when Red Hat contributes to open source it's always from a position of strength. If a project is important to them, they need merge authority - they simply don't know how to meaningfully contribute to an upstream project when they're not in charge. Because of the diverging design priorities, they never earned true merge rights on the repo: they had to argue for their pull requests like everyone else, and input from maintainers was not optional. Many pull requests were never merged because of fundamental design issues, like breaking compatibility with non-Red Hat platforms. Others because of subjective architecture disagreements. They really didn't like that, which led to all sorts of drama and bad behavior. In the process I lost respect for a company I once admired.
I also think they made a mistake marketing podman as a drop-in replacement to Docker. This promise of compatibility limited their design freedom and I'm sure caused the maintainers a lot of headaches- compatibility is hard!
Ultimately the true priority of podman - native integration with the Red Hat platform - makes it impossible for it to overtake Docker. I'm sure some of the podman authors would like to jettison that constraint, but I don't think that's structurally possible. Red Hat will never invest in a project that doesn't contribute to their platform lock-in. Back when RH was a dominant platform, that was a strength. Nowadays it is a hindrance.
There was probably a lot going on behind closed doors, but from the outside, it appeared that RedHat was trying to improve the security and technical details of containers, but Docker was just refusing pull requests and not playing nice. This eventually drove RedHat to make their own implementation (i.e. Podman), so it was a self created enemy and not necessarily one that was built-in/inevitable.
I'm definitely not a fan of RedHat's moves since being acquired, but at least from the outside, this looked like Docker being arrogant and problematic and not a "RedHat problem".
I am painfully aware of that narrative. All I can say is that it is a false narrative, deliberately pushed by Red Hat for competitive reasons. There was a deliberate decision to spend marketing dollars making Docker look bad (specifically less secure), at a time where we were competing directly in the datacenter market.
Ask yourself: how many open source projects reject PRs every day because of design disagreements? That's just how open source works. Why did you hear about that specific case of PRs getting rejected, and why do you associate it with vague concepts like "arrogance" and "insecurity"? That's because a marketing team engineered a narrative, then spent money to deploy that narrative - via blog posts, social media posts, talks at conferences, analyst briefings, partner briefings, sales pitches, and so on. This investment was justified by the business imperative of countering what was perceived to be an existential threat to Red Hat's core business.
It opened my eyes to the reality of big business in tech: many of the "vibes" and beliefs held by the software engineering community, are engineered by marketing. If you have enough money to spend, you can get software engineers to believe almost anything. It is a depressing realization that I am still grappling with.
The most damning example I can give you: we once rejected a PR because it broke compatibility with other platforms. Red Hat went ahead and merged it in their downstream RPM package. So, Fedora and RHEL users who thought they were installing Docker, were in fact installing an unauthorized modified version of it. Later, a security vulnerability was discovered in their modified version only, but advertised as a vulnerability in Docker - imagine our confusion, looking for a vulnerability in code that we had not shipped. Then Red Hat used this specific vulnerability, which only existed in their modified version, in their marketing material attacking Docker as "insecure". That was an eye-opening moment for me...
If it is pure marketing, I wonder why docker couldn't play the same game and be better at it?
E.g. for your most damning example: If docker published this story, blogged about it, made noice in places like HN, it is exactly what the press would love: RH breaks docker security while claiming to be more secure! The Emperor has no clothes! If you take security serious, accept no fake substitutes!
In any case I meant it in an informal software engineering sense: it's bad form for a packager to distribute upstream software under its original name, with substantial modifications beyond what users would expect distro packagers to make - backporting, build rules, etc.
For such a downstream change to introduce security vulnerabilities is a major fuckup. To actively blame upstream for said vulnerability, while competing with them in the market, is unethical.
Along with various other people to try to protect them from malicious political prosecution. Much like how Comey, Bolton, and a variety of current and former government officials are now being prosecuted on questionable charges.
Yeah, because he was guarding them against the current administration abusing the Justice Department to go after them. Same reason he pardoned Fauci and others.
And from what we've seen, he was right to do so. Although, they've been angling to declare his pardons void so they can go after whoever they wish.
By considering the facts of the matter, sure it's as you said. But if you ignore every detail then it does look like everyone is exactly as bad as each other and it's impossible to say anything is good or bad.
> Yeah, because he was guarding them against the current administration abusing the Justice Department to go after them. Same reason he pardoned Fauci and others.
Are pre-emptive pardons a common thing for American presidents to do?
> Yeah, because he was guarding them against the current administration abusing the Justice Department to go after them
Ha ha. They (democrats overall) need to look inwards for that.
> Same reason he pardoned Fauci and others.
Fauci screwed up our country so bad, it aint even funny. The fact that he needed a PRE-EMPTIVE (i.e. he wasn't even accused of anything at the time) pardon says it all. And the fact that Biden gave it to him, says everything there is to say about Biden.
> And from what we've seen, he was right to do so.
Not even close.
> Although, they've been angling to declare his pardons void so they can go after whoever they wish.
They should.
- Look at what Biden did to the southern border. And look at it now.
- Look at almost any "democrat" run major city. Any. Then look at the crime rates and cost of living.
- And the recent farce that was this "No Kings" crap...
Trump isn't perfect. Far from it. He's got major flaws, both in character and execution. However, name any major policy initiative that he's undertaken that is bad for the "country". As a whole.
> However, name any major policy initiative that he's undertaken that is bad for the "country".
His foreign policy means even the EU is now looking inward more because we simply don't trust you guys anymore. Thanks, we were depending on you guys too much anyway! It will take a while before we're weened off of you for sure, but your global influence will shrink tremendously thanks to your current president's untrustwortiness.
In dutch we have a saying which is roughly translated as "Trust comes on foot, and leaves by horse"
Electricity prices are up everywhere. We're still way lower than many many places. There's many parts of the US (take a wild guess where all the data centers are going...) where electric rates are <$.10/kwh.
Now compare that to...
Yes, solar and wind projects are being canceled, and yes, there may be an element of ideology involved, but the reality also is that the math aint working.
If the math worked, Europe's energy prices wouldn't be where they are now, given the commitment they've made to renewables. I'd much rather see a national focus on nuclear, which is as clean as any other form of energy, and to a degree that is happening now.
The math is clear - solar + batteries is the cheapest source of electricity. China isn't generating 80% of all new electricity with solar because they want to be green above all else.
> Europe's energy prices wouldn't be where they are now, given the commitment they've made to renewables
Again a tired old lie. Europe is a big place, just like the US. Some countries have high prices and some countries don't.
I agree it has to put the people first, just like China is doing. And if you want to get on the climate change soapbox, it's too late. The US produces more global warming emissions per capita than any other country, and China's not going to catch up.
The US has been a top, if not the top, producer and exporter of oil for some time. Trump's not particularly involved in that above and beyond using it as a campaign slogan.
The problem is that the rest of the world is very actively moving on, led by China. A great many oil importing countries reduced their imports last year. China deploys more solar in 6 months than the US has deployed ever and is distributing this technology to the rest of the world far cheaper than they can bring it here. The US had a program to get 1000 new auto chargers installed. China installed 100,000. People are simply unaware of the sheer scale of the Chinese juggernaut. They think that since we're ahead now (questionable) and we're going 95 MPH, we'll always be ahead. They don't realize that China is going 250 and we're getting passed.
Trump would do well for the country to plan ahead JUST A LITTLE BIT.
But as Bolton said, it's unclear if Trump knows the difference between his personal interest and the national interest, or if he's even aware there is a national interest.
Easy: what passes for diplomacy has been so awful that nobody wants to buy weapons from us anymore, nor do they value our treaty commitments. Oh the irony of proposing to meet in Budapest.
>Trump isn't perfect. Far from it. He's got major flaws, both in character and execution. However, name any major policy initiative that he's undertaken that is bad for the "country". As a whole.
They're usually not that bad for his billionaire grifter buddies, I'll give you that.
I would say normalizing armed law enforcement wearing masks and refusing to provide any ID is utterly bad for the COUNTRY.
Or maybe it's only bad for the people who get assaulted or shot by them and have no way of recourse. Let's hope that's not you, eh?
Personally directing the Attorney General to prosecute his political enemies and then firing prosecutors until he finds one who will agree to do it. Basically what Nixon was to be impeached for now happening on a weekly basis.
He posted on Truth Social explicitly directing Pam Bondi to prosecute Bolton, James, and Comey. Then the DOJ charged them with crimes.
In the James case, Kristin Bird and Elizabeth Yusi (prosecutors in EDVA) were both fired for refusing to bring charges, only to be replaced by Trump's personal attorney Lindsey Halligan (who is not even a prosecutor).
In the Comey case, again they fired Erik Siebert, also from EDVA, because he wouldn't prosecute. They put Trump's personal attorney on instead and she immediately gave the prosecution a greenlight against a tight statute of limitations deadline.
Just watch: today there was a report that prosecutors in Maryland are hesitant to bring charges against Adam Schiff. My guess is whoever is gumming up the works there will be fired and replaced by another Halligan.
This is why it is pointless to reply to people like you.
You badger and badger and badger. You want examples, you want evidence. You want, you want, and you want. Never do you provide evidence. Never do you provide examples. And if you do provide something you claim to be an example, it's usually some vague declaration that really isn't true. But if someone pushes back, it's on them to "prove you wrong".
And the minute someone points out the actual facts of a situation in a way you are incapable of denying or shouting down, you run to your echo chambers to look for the talking points.
Why?
Why carry water for this administration? Their policies are going to be bad for you as well.
You may not notice it yet, but he has ruined the reputation of your country. People consider it insane to travel there now for vacations. We are actively avoiding American garbage. We are migrating away from American clouds.
He is focussed on short term bullshit while what matters on the world stage is soft power. America was considered trustworthy, the defacto leader of the world.
Now you're just a bully, an impotent one at that. You are no longer taken seriously.
You will notice the effects eventually, possibly after Trump is already rotting in his grave.
I originally wrote it because I wanted to do a mass-refactoring to llvm-project to change its weird naming convention and "it will mess up git blame" was an objection that was raised.
Getting ignore-revs landed took many iterations over several months (thanks Barret!) and at the end of it I felt so drained that I didn't have the energy to do the mass refactoring I originally planned. Oh well. Maybe someday.
A big thank you! Blame history being correct is something i care quite a bit about and I always add one of these files when I do formatting changes. I think I'm probably the only developer on my teams with this configured on though haha!
They also did Trello. No idea if they got paid big for spinning off/selling Trello.
There was also some vncviewer/rdp client-type thing (copilot) which was more consumer-friendly - relatively quick install/didn't spew files/garbage all over your disk/registry.
He also co-founded stackoverflow, so I thought there was a big payday when stackoverflow got bought.
Yes it is new. The WHO only changed their guidance about a year ago [1]. Still, as far as I know the evidence is only associational. From the paper the article links to: "Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated".
So it sounds like artificial sugars can actually cause diabetes? That's unfortunate. Occasionally I drink Coke Zero as an alternative to Coke, but perhaps I should start replacing that with unsweetened seltzer water like La Croix.
No, the "Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated" means that instead of artificial sweeteners causing diabetes, causality can be reversed: Diabetes causes the intake of artificial sweeteners.
All these studies just show an association, but can not prove the direction of causality. For whatever reason, the idea that diabetic and overweight people deliberately seek out zero sugar sweeteners so that they can enjoy sweetness without making their situation worse just doesn't seem like a plausible explanation to them.
Personally, if you can't definitively prove something is bad for you after 45+ years of research, I just don't care anymore. People can occasionally drink Coke regular without issue, I wouldn't be worried. Most of the time, diabetes is not caused by merely occasional consumption of sugars.
I agree with you but also:
I gave my young daughter her own Android phone last week.
Google Family Link is fantastic. It prevents her from using a web browser or any other things I don't want her to do. All she can do is message people, call people & look at maps. It turns itself the phone off an hour before bedtime. She can get headlines from Google search, which I didn't expect, but it's not proven a problem since the links can't be opened.
The usage tracker shows she spent almost an hour messaging/calling yesterday, which is more than I expected, but if it gets too much then I can limit it.
One happy customer here.
When your kid turns 13 (or maybe it was 14), Google decides they're an adult now and takes the reins away from you. We just went through this with our teen
Google asks your kid, and they can pick either way. You can tell them "Hey, this is a device I bought for you, using a cell phone service I pay for, so either reenroll in supervision or I'm taking my device back". A little harsh, but... then you still get roughly the same level of control as before.
Looks like you're right. I don't remember it occurring this way in late 2021, so I wonder if the implementation changed at all since then, but it could also be poor attention to detail on my part
> When your kid turns 13 (or maybe it was 14), Google decides they're an adult now and takes the reins away from you.
Google stops locking in to behavior that is a direct response to age-related government regulations and defaults to the choice of the registered user at exactly the age the regulatiom ceases to apply?
I was expecting its Java based nature to be a problem but in practise found bazelisk to be remarkably self contained and fast.
Bazel has issues but Java isn't one of them.
