Linux powers the world in this area and bash is the glue which executes all these commands on servers.
Any program or language you write to try and 'revolutionise CI' and be this glue will ultimately make the child process call to a bash/sh terminal anyhow and you need to read both stdout and stderr and exit codes to figure out next steps.
Why? We've spent years upon years upon years of building systems that enshittify processes. We've spent years losing talent in the industry and the trends aren't going to reverse. We are our own worst enemy, and are directly responsible for the state of the industry, and to an extent, the world.
To not call out bullshit where one sees it, is violence.
This is kinda... rude. Like saying that a GUI doesn't serve a purpose when people could read the TTY.
CI gives you areas for your bash scripts to run in self-contained small runs, that may trigger other runs, in a repeatable fashion on a clean environment, on a GUI anybody in your team can see. It gives you quick integrations into things.
CD lets you repeatedly deploy - without forgeting a step that was only known to Phil, the guy that retired three years ago, remembering all the steps and doing something dependably.
It was originally named XFce after the XForms library. As of Xfce 3, it uses GTK though, so it could be called GTKce, but renaming the project every time you change widget toolkits is probably not a good idea.
> (Here's a hint, it's actually quite affordable right now if you go to a GP out of pocket).
You're wrong and you're conflating your myopic perspective with the experiences of everyone else in the world in other countries. It's only "cheap" where you live. Here where I live, it's insanely expensive with (very expensive) insurance or without insurance (bankruptcy risk) and the average care is shit too.
The health insurance companies were given massive government subsidies to insure the previously (theoretically) uninsurable with no real provisions to cap rate hikes for anybody, and no alternative plan (public alternative that was originally part of the bill was killed). Large corporations received a captive market where people HAD to purchase health insurance (or pay a relatively onerous-at-the-time fine).
Insurance companies wrote for, edited, and lobbied around most of the bill as it was passed.
E: A fun downstream effect of it was that employer-provided insurance rates also went through the roof.
Nearly tripled in my case, but I've literally been either told that that was a conspiracy theory (still flabbergasted as to how?), or been argued against with some vague appeal-to-emotions with regards to "but the poor people without health coverage". I wasn't exactly just out of minimum wage territory living paycheck to paycheck as a junior sysadmin at the time either, but who's counting, right?
Because at the time I could name about 20 people who lived at or below minimum wage with or without healthcare insurance and the ones that would conduct this appeal could not.
How are the EU legislators complaining about this like its a novel idea or somehow undemocratic? This sort of email templating website has been a fixture of contact your reps movements on the state and federal level for years in the states.
I also get a kick out of lobbyists complaining about it.
reply