That assumes that the sole reason America has tech dominance is because of international diversity. But we've always been tech dominant, and according to many people we're not even diverse.
There are certainly a couple of examples of international diversity, and refugee acceptance, among two of the largest tech companies ever. Steve Jobs is the son of a Syrian refugee. Likewise, Sergey Brin's family came to this country as a Russian refugee.
I've used Fedora on the desktop for about five years and never had this issue. Maybe they were thinking you shouldn't change permissions on files in /etc unless you know what you're doing?
What specific software causes problems? I use SELinux on the desktop and have no issues with it other than occasional warnings which don't seem to effect anything. I develop a lot of networked applications and do a lot of stuff with Linux containers.
On the server I usually use Ubuntu and run custom server software running in a container and never have problems.
I just ran into one yesterday. I was pulling my hair out because rsyslog wasn't forwarding messages to logstash. I checked and double checked my configurations, tried different settings, and it all looked correct but it still wouldn't work. Finally an strace of rsyslog showed permission denied when attempting to send a message. Aha, SELinux got me again.
strace is seriously amazing for troubleshooting stuff that you can't just throw some debug print statements into. strace -f -e open -s 4096 -- whatever --foo is my typical usage of it (follow forks, only trace "open" calls (to see what a program might be trying to look for a thing), string size = 4096 so e.g. Paths don't get cut off, -- to say that you're done giving options to strace and all --options should now go to "whatever"). That + ps auxf | less and searching for a process to see how it fits into the tree + lsof -p [pid] + top and hitting c, 1, u (then typing the user of processes I'm interested in) or hitting < or > to change sort columns + netstat -lnp | grep LISTEN....are the basics of how i figure WTF is going on with a system I've just jumped onto. SELinux and systemd with the journal logging sometimes getting in the way of these flows unless you know what you're looking for and are vaguely aware of how they hook into things.
Wouldn't it have been easier to check the audit.log? Pump out the contents to audit2allow and you will have a nice new config that would allow your setup. Heck, it would even tell you if there is already a boolean for that config.
I really don't see any reason to disable SELinux. Maybe back in RHEL5 days, but not since then. Just educate yourself on some tools. It really isn't that hard.
Sure, it would have been easier for me to check the audit log, however the idea that it was an issue with SELinux didn't even cross my mind until I used strace. The vast majority of Linux systems I work on do not have it enabled.
You may not see a reason to disable SELinux, but not all Linux systems are RHEL, and don't have it enabled to begin with. I personally would not enable it on a system that did not design for it as a default.
I had problems with users not being allowed to upload pictures to MediaWiki. It was an internal use only machine so I had no problem with disabling SElinux but I would highly recommend working thru the pain on an internet facing box.
I wonder if he really thinks holding the world hostage with proprietary software is ethical? You would think the guy would be 100% aware of the barriers Microsoft creates for people struggling in third world countries, yet MS has no problem handing out free copies of Windows in third world countries to to get people hooked into the closed system so that they can eventually create profit which Bill Gates claims to be using to fight malaria, yet he just keeps making more and more money.
I just wonder if he's aware that his OS is the least accessible to the poor, and that proprietary software is generally bad for developing societies.
I wish the circle jerk around this guy would come to an end.
Also the article was very vague to me, I don't know what they base this all on, but a 900 billion increase in wealth in 25 years based on what?
Edit: found a better article with this:
"For the hypothetical analysis, Oxfam researchers applied the rate of growth he has been enjoying, 11 per cent per year since 2009, to Gates' current levels of wealth (over USD 84 billion, according to Forbes)"
The press was asking for this though, at least the mainstream press like CNN and MSNBC.
Not only did they push the Hillary Clinton agenda, but it was obvious to anyone with a brain that the liberal news networks didn't mind that they were helping Trump win the republican nominee, because they thought he would easily loose, and be a great figure head to point at next time someone tries to claim not all white men are racist.
Their plan back fired though and now this is what we have.
The left kept saying the right was going to destroy our rights and every day it gets worse and worse. They act as if we're in the end times. What's going to happen when Trump actually does something insane? No one will take the media seriously then (most have already lost faith). It's like the boy who cried wolf, but the media who cried fascism.
Part of me wonders if maybe the media is trying to destroy the American empire, they seem to be spiraling out of control.
It really cracks me up whenever I hear the extreme right lambast the mainstream media, who (at least in the US) is mostly right wing anyway.
Trump should be kissing the feet of the mainstream media, who were the single biggest force responsible for his election. Without "Trump" being the most often repeated word on every mainstream reporter's lips ever since he started running for office, he wouldn't have stood a chance.
Trump got virtually non-stop, world-wide, free advertising -- the kind that even his money couldn't buy. His election is proof positive that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Trump should be grovelling before the mainstream media. But to pander to his base, who long ago swallowed the "liberal mainstream media" conspiracy theory, and to deflect criticism, he has to pretend that he's a victim of the mainstream media, when he's really their beneficiary.
I think the "business people" are people who hide their technological inadequacy behind supposed business expertise. A businesses success is not determined by whether or not they use tools that adhere to business micro-cultural "values".
If "too much transparency" is a turn off for you, you're probably just an authoritarian trying to scheme and scam your way into profit, and you probably lack the confidence required to put whatever skill you think you have on display.
At my company we always heir on the side of transparency and liberally post to our status. subdomain whenever an issue is identified.
Recently, our Redis cluster failed and both master & slave host machines rebooted.
This caused a latency spike in our app, from roughly a 70ms to 400ms response time for less than 10 minutes.
We posted to status within 60 seconds and posted 3 updates within those 10 minutes.
The next day, a new customer (who hadn't gone live with the app yet) cancelled their subscription because the app was "not reliable".
I guess my point is that there is a balance to strike. Our customers are not tech-savvy in any way and treat any small issue as the end of the world. Maybe there's no need to freak people out for a minutes-long latency spike.
This demonstrates a remarkable lack of empathy. Try understanding why people on the business side do what they do—it's almost never out of malice or desired authoritarianism.
Working with people is hard, specifically because you have to get outside of your head and think about how they see the world.
I suspect the comment you're replying to meant that the business people might feel negatively about trusting the company that lost data, regardless of transparency.
It really wouldn't have been that hard to write your opinion in a way that doesn't disparage the character of the person (that you don't really know) that you're responding to.
There's no reason to hide behind a new account other than to be an asshole.
The fact that they were upfront and honest about it and that they even live streamed themselves fixing the problems makes me want to use gitlab even more. If anything I have even more confidence in them. You didn't hear a peep from Microsoft when the forced windows 10 upgrade bricked thousands of laptops. Perhaps that's why such a huge portion of developers prefer OSX/Linux to Windows? I've run six businesses over the past decade and when windows 10 started rolling out I was in a Houston office that lost nearly a hundred terabytes of client data. We did everything by the books, paid for the business and enterprise editions of Windows, used their servers, used their proprietary software stack, used their support service, and they still fucked us and didn't really seem to care or think they did anything wrong.
I have another company that runs on a completely open stack, where pretty much nothing is integrated by a specific vendor. We have hiccups, but we've never had the OS get hijacked and upgraded.
I've noticed most start-ups run by devs run on a more open stack and hack their way through problems on the cheap, and the ones run by corporate executives try to keep things as closed as possible, but end up spending millions to solve problems that they could have had some people solve for fun on the internet.
I prefer to use the right tool for the right job, but I wish companies like Microsoft would be more open when they cause huge issues that end up causing monetary loss. I make sure all my critical infrastructure is open source these days.
"You didn't hear a peep from Microsoft when the forced windows 10 upgrade bricked thousands of laptops. Perhaps that's why such a huge portion of developers prefer OSX/Linux to Windows? "
Weird that you group OSX in there. The only company in mainstream tech more secretive than Microsoft when it comes to problems is... Apple.
Being able to own up to a problem doesn't imply an ability to fix the problem going forward.
"Test-recover backups" is ops 101. "Monitor your backup process to be sure your backup store isn't empty" is ops 101. "Script your rollouts so you don't have an ops person doing SSH on boxes" is... ok, that one might be ops 102.
This points to a company with almost no understanding of how to operationalize software. There are certain to be far more landmines, possibly even bigger ones. Hiring an ops person to fix these problems is definitely possible - and I sincerely wish GitLab luck getting a competent ops team in place before the next crisis.
I don't know why people on hacker news are against transparency. I'm glad you guys are live streaming this, others would feel too inadequate to do so. Being this transparent only makes me want to use (and contribute to) gitlab even more.
I'm guessing they feel strongly about getting singled out if something like this would happen to them. Possibly because they have been used as a scapegoat by a employer or team mate once.
> I don't know why people on hacker news are against transparency.
> Being this transparent only makes me want to use (and contribute to) gitlab even more.
I hope you'll be there when someone doesn't hire the person responsible for their mistake so you can vouch for them.
You don't have radical transparency because the world is not the understanding meritocracy you think it is. There is no value to the employee for having radical transparency in a post mortem.
