... Until they hire you back because entropy exists :P
I'm on the DevOps side as well going through the same transition, k8s also allows insane customization, and I have some colleagues that are delaying our rollout unintentionally so they can play around with developing more tooling for deployments which is really frustrating. The k8s scene seems to be filled with constant scope creep and refactoring to get it just perfect before use. Either way, I agree the benefits far outweigh this annoyance that I've experienced. I'm so excited to work on developing tooling instead with my time.
However, I don't think we're free entirely from managing servers the old way with Chef / Puppet / Ansible, unless you're purely hosted there's still the rule of thumb you shouldn't run services that hold state in k8s. But with persistent vol's I do see that changing, though I'm not sure if everyone agree's that's a good idea.
"I have some colleagues that are delaying our rollout unintentionally so they can play around with developing more tooling for deployments which is really frustrating."
My impression is that the primary purpose of Kubernetes is to give SRE teams political air cover to rewrite a lot of their existing processes. Whether Kubernetes is actually required for that, or even net superior seems questionable. This unsexy work becomes justifiable because it's coupled to a mainstream accepted tech modernization.
You see this same phenomenon with database migrations. Where what the team really needed to do is just rewrite an app to use the existing database properly. But no one is going to approve that work. So what happens is people convince themselves that the existing tech sucks and use that to rationalize doing the rewrite. The result ends up not always being net superior, because sure you did the rewrite but you are also eating the operational cost of integrating a new technology into the org.
Yes, the number of proposed db switched I’ve seen is remarkably high. I once interviewed for a role as a database developer and was confused to find out they didn’t have the database that the role pertained to. One of the early questions in the interview was how quickly I could migrate production from ms sql to pg. Needless to say that was a gigantic red flag and I hope they found the right person for that job.
I’ve also seen a switch from rdbms to Hadoop because a company had “millions” of rows. Luckily on this one I only had to rewrite a handful of queries.
I've got relatively modestly-specced SQL Servers handling tables with hundreds of millions and even billions of rows without breaking a sweat. Somebody either just really wanted a new toy to play with, or has no idea what indexes are.
Exactly, I’ve seen Sql servers handle billions of rows with 2 thousand columns. I think also people that work too long at one company don’t realize how problems were solved elsewhere.
> I’ve also seen a switch from rdbms to Hadoop because a company had “millions” of rows. Luckily on this one I only had to rewrite a handful of queries.
Wat. That's gross. It probably costs them more per query now than the rdbms did.
> So what happens is people convince themselves that the existing tech sucks and use that to rationalize doing the rewrite.
That certainly is a thing that happens, but you could use that to dismiss any technology at all. In the case of Kubernetes, it makes operations a lot easier to the (important) effect that the development teams can do a lot of their own operations work. This is important since they're the ones who are empowered to solve operations problems and it also eliminates the blame game between ops and dev. Further, it eliminates a lot of coordination with a separate ops team--the dev teams aren't competing to get time from an ops team; they can solve their own problems, especially the most common ones. This also has the nice property of freeing the SREs to work on high-level automation, including integrating tools from the ecosystem (e.g., cert-manager, external-dns, etc).
Kubernetes certainly isn't the final stage in the evolution, but it's a welcome improvement.
> but you could use that to dismiss any technology at all
No, you can't; you need three (-ish) factors:
1. The technology is sufficiently incompatible with what you're currently using that you need a rewrite to use it (eg, this generally doesn't happen with gcc -> llvm, for example).
2. The technology is sufficiently (faux-)popular that it's possible to convince a pointy-haired boss that you need to switch to it (eg, this won't work with COBOL anymore, though unfortunately it successor Java is still going).
3. The technology sucks.
And really, if you want to dismiss a technology, point 3 ought to be enough all on its own (particularly since that's presumably the reason you want to dismiss that technology).
I think in your eagerness to 'gotcha' me, you missed my point. :)
Anyway, we're trying to assess Kubernetes' value proposition (i.e., to answer "does it suck?"). If your system for answering that question depends on already knowing the answer, it's not a very useful system.
> we're trying to assess Kubernetes' value proposition (i.e., to answer "does it suck?").
Well, I'm not, since I already know that, but if you don't know that yet, then your position makes more sense. (That is, using "dismiss" in the sense of finding out that it sucks, rather than (as I read it) in the sense of justifying a refusal to use technology that you already know sucks.)
Unfortunately, due to market-for-lemons dynamics, it's usually not possible to convey knowledge that a particular technology sucks until things have already gone horribly wrong. See eg COBOL or (the Java-style corruption of) Object Oriented Programming.
> you are also eating the operational cost of integrating a new technology into the org.
and in short order you will reap the savings of being able to hire people who already know your devops/infra tech stack, and can hit the ground running. not to mention being able to benefit from the constant improvements that come from outside your org.
Maybe. I don't buy that just because people are on Kubernetes they won't still kludge it up with custom in-house scripts or "extensions". Give it time.
Ha, are you me? I really pushed for us to follow the "change-as-little-as-possible and ship to prod quickly" route. Prod is where things get hard, and it's better to find out what's hard sooner rather than later.
We are running a handful of stateful services in K8s (things like MongoDB for which GCP doesn't have a compelling and affordable managed offering). It's definitely more complex than transitioning a stateless service, but so far our experiences with StatefulSets and PersistentVolumes have been good. And this allows us to sunset Puppet/OS management completely. I should note that we _are_ being extremely careful about backups. We also run each stateful service in a dedicated node pool for isolation. Who knows, maybe a year from now we'll be shaking our heads and saying "that was a TERRIBLE idea" but for now, so far so good.
We're running on GKE, so lots of things that would be hard in on-prem environments (ingress, networking, storage) are easy.
> We're running on GKE, so lots of things that would be hard in on-prem environments (ingress, networking, storage) are easy.
Agreed. The on-prem story is still really messy, but I think there's a lot of third-party work to build on-prem distributions that are cut and dry. Unfortunately, there are lots of them right now and it's not clear what the advantages and pitfalls are of each. Things will settle and this problem will be solved with time, but for now it's quite a pain point.
There is a difference. Fascism is originally defined as national socialism by Mussolini. What Republicans do you see advocating for any such thing? Under actual Fascism, private ownership of businesses was allowed, but the government limited the profits they could make. Point me to where Republicans are trying to limit the amount of profits any company in the US can make.
If the comparison is totalitarian tendencies, you have a lot of effort to go through to frame this as a one sided problem as both sides exhibit such time to time.
The only thing conservatives and Fascists have in common is they are nationalist at this point, that's it. The constant throwing around of the Fascist label upon the right wing in this country is so disconnected from reality, as someone who loves history it makes me cringe to no end.
Why are you downvoted? How much motherland rhetoric did the soviets push? What about the CCP pushing for a "strong China" narrative. Venezuela was a very "venezuela first" ideology.
Yes, left wingers, socialists and communists are very nationalistic as well. That or are "the party" first... which just ends up being nationalism with an extra step.
The four states pillars of the Constitution of my home country, Bangladesh, are “nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujibism
It seems quite bizarre to me to not have a level of nationalism. Obviously the purpose of American government is ensuring the prosperity of Americans. What else could it be? And how else can you get 330 million people—who don’t share an ethnicity, history, first language, etc.—to consent to common governance without encouraging a healthy level of nationalism?
Fascism is nationalism taken to the level of justifying war on others because of self-declared superiority. That’s beyond ordinary nationalism.
Nobody said that it does or has to do in that exact form but at this point some people want to be to loose in order to make a dishonest picture of anyone to the right of Mao
I find it unfortunate we don't focus more on this problem. Children raised in single parent households are more likely to be on a criminal path and end up in prison. There's also significant mental health issues that arise from it [0]. It seems these days being concerned about the breakdown of the American family resulting in crime and mental health issues and the general lack of traditional family values puts you in the conservative category and then you get knee-jerk hostility.
Unfortunately I feel our society and current pop culture somehow feeds this problem, but I can't pinpoint how. Some say the welfare system doesn't help either [1]. But I'm not certain that's the full answer, and can also feed into yet more political hysteria.
I think you have to be careful not to conflate correlation and causation here. Criminals are also more likely to come from homes with high poverty, lower educational attainment, etc. It's entirely likely that those factors contribute to family breakdown so "broken homes" and criminality have the same causes, rather than one causing the other.
IMO the US is the epicentre of the cult of the individual which stresses personal pleasure and freedom over value creation in society. That's what causes it.
That doesn't jive on a historical basis when and where enlightenment era thinking and classical liberalism were much higher then they are today. Unless I am misreading your comment and you are simply talking about hedonism.
It's hedonism + individualism. We tell our children things like "you are unique, there is nobody else like you" and "just be yourself" and we ask them things like "who do you want to be when you grow up?". We raise our children to be identity driven.
Then they grow up, find a lover, and realize they need to give up parts of their individuality in order for the relationship to work.
Whaaaatt?? Give up my individuality? But I was raised to enshrine this above all else! Heck no, I'd rather divorce!
As a non-American watching U.S. culture from the outside, I generally agree that those two factors are important contributors to many problems. I would also add to hedonism and individualism the encouragement of a "just-world" myth, which comes as a corollary to the American Dream: you can achieve anything if you work hard for it—therefore, if you didn't achieve it, you didn't work hard enough.
This results in low self-worth of many people in bad circumstances, lack of compassion towards them from those who are better off, and sometimes active disdain from those who were lucky enough to climb out of poverty, as an overcompensation for their own past hardship.
Mom-only households are 43.9% for Blacks, 12.0% for Whites.
"In the words of Harvard’s Paul Peterson, “some programs actively discouraged marriage,” because “welfare assistance went to mothers so long as no male was boarding in the household… Marriage to an employed male, even one earning the minimum wage, placed at risk a mother’s economic well-being.” Infamous “man in the house” rules meant that welfare workers would randomly appear in homes to check and see if the mother was accurately reporting her family-status.
The benefits available were extremely generous. According to Peterson, it was “estimated that in 1975 a household head would have to earn $20,000 a year to have more resources than what could be obtained from Great Society programs.” In today’s dollars, that’s over $90,000 per year in earnings.
That may be a reason why, in 1964, only 7% of American children were born out of wedlock, compared to 40% today. As Jason Riley has noted, “the government paid mothers to keep fathers out of the home—and paid them well.”
If we want this to improve, the simplest solution is to unlink being a single parent from getting extra welfare or preferential access to social housing. If we want to go even further, we could unlink welfare from having children at all, and just offer child tax credits instead and universal access to family planning.
I can't help but think the shutdowns and lockdowns are disproportionately hurting young single adults: the prime group of people who need a way to meet each other to in order to not be single.
It's saddening to think that online dating has been the only way to meet new people for millions of young single people over the past 12 months.
> Unfortunately I feel our society and current pop culture somehow feeds this problem, but I can't pinpoint how
Until the world opens back up and people are able to interact again, I don't see pop culture as the real problem.
And online dating is so horribly broken anyway. Anecdata, but I'm in that age group and just completely checked out of dating (and even general socialisation) because it's just impossible. Many of my friends have done the same.
I spent ten years in prison, talking to people and trying to understand, and can confirm that the vast majority of people there come from broken homes. A huge reason is that it makes children very susceptible to bad influences. Two parents can struggle to give children the attention they need. With just one parent, who is likely busy working or too high to really parent, kids find the attention they need from gangs and drug dealers.
"Unfortunately I feel our society and current pop culture somehow feeds this problem, but I can't pinpoint how."
Maybe the problem is that government began focusing on this with the War on Poverty?
Maybe this focus is how our society is "feeding this problem"?
Maybe by subsidizing single parent homes, we inadvertently create more single parent homes?
Maybe we consider data:
- How many black homes in the 1940s single parent vs 1970s?
- What were the black unemployment rates in the 1920s vs 1990s? Or 2010 vs 2019?
- See https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
Instead of renaming schools why don't we free students. For example, rather than throwing money at unions, help the students in Baltimore schools go to schools of their parent's choice such as religious or charter schools. Thirteen of 39 high schools in Baltimore have ZERO students proficient in math.
We doom these children at $15k/head/yr.
Read some of Dr. Thomas Sowell's work. The data is there. It is data that changed him from a marxist as a young man to a believer in freedom and markets.
It's time we did more research on the economic effects of the ways children are raised...
For example, what impact does boarding school have on both the children and the families they come from? (boarding school allows both parents to work all week, allows children more time to socialize with their peers, allows parents to own smaller houses, etc.)
What impact do after school clubs have (so parents can both have a full time job). How about residential summer camps?
How about the impact of larger remote schools? In a school of 100 children, the range of activities that can be offered is limited. Yet if there were 100,000 children, then children could specialize on really rare topics, and still have enough people interested to fill a class.
It just seems there are so many potential ways to make family life & schooling work better for everyone, but without data it's a matter of every parent stumbling in the dark, because for most people child-raising isn't something they have done hundreds of times before.
I struggle to see the political claim that these people are being flooded with Trumpers. This event was and has been pretty bipartisan.
From what I’ve seen thus far is the media trying to use the Q / Trumper angle against this community to tarnish its public perception and recent novelty.
I am happy to be proven wrong though, I just don’t see it.
There are some elements of something The_Donald-like, but it's true that it's
not (yet?) the same thing.
They push a lot of very strong and completely unsubstantiated conspiracy claims
in particular, and they'll quickly accuse anybody dissenting of being a shill or
having an ulterior purpose.
This is good OG WSB content, written by one of the users that was in on the play
from the very start.
But there's the problem: since he knew what he was doing, he managed to sell at
the right moment and make huge benefits. That doesn't fit the narrative nu-WSB
wants to push. So this very good old-school WSB post can't even get half a
thousand upvotes.
Meanwhile post some vaguely conspirationist anti-wall street article and skyrocket
to the top of the frontpage.
So yeah, it's not The_Donald, but there's definitely this strong anti-system, populist, "everybody is out to get me" conspirationist, fact-adverse mindset that you find in these types of communities.
Note in particular that, somewhat ironically, WSB calls itself "4chan with a bloomberg terminal", so it seems fitting that it's following a similar trajectory of ironic edgyness turning genuine as new people get in and take it at face value.
While gp is right about the influx of users (Ive only been around wsb for 4 years or so), which I will address later, I agree with you on the tarnishing tactic being used. What I saw was very open "fuck the big money people" that transcended party lines, often explicitly.
That said, there are sure to be a large portion of "the right", on the sub, as the fact of the matter is that a significant percentage of the US is!
As for what caused the influx, I think you can blame reddit for getting rid of all the edgier communities, and lots of people like that sort of thing, so over the years as a wsb post hit /all the numbers would jump because people would say " hey, I like this place, its edgy and self-deprecating" and over time it changed the demographics. I think back then though people mostly lurked, this influx has caused a lot more mime-posting.
Aren't "the right" typically pro big business people? That's been the big joke. Trailer park white trash right wingers defending big business. Why would you assume they're all right wingers when they're all "fuck the big money people". Aren't leftists the first ones to say, "fuck the big money people"?
Why would any part of the media even want to do that? This is a classic man-bites-dog story, and is being treated as such everywhere I look.
I'm seeing it implied fairly regularly here and on Reddit that journalists are somehow anti-WSB, but I just don't see it, and I don't know why it would ever be the case.
Maybe people are mixing up market analysts (who work for financial institutions) with finance journalists (who work for news organisations)?
Maybe people think journalists are afraid of losing valuable sources in big banks if they don't denigrate the day traders (even though all those big firms also made a fortune in this mess)?
I'm necessarily saying it's "Trumpers", just that lots of the rhetoric, especially stuff that gets to the front page of r/all, seems to be the kind of all-caps, hyper-reductionist, chest-beating "SO MUCH WINNING" kind of rhetoric we saw in 2016. I do think this is bipartisan, in that there's no one side of the political spectrum that's flooding in here, but I think we're seeing the kind of hype devices that were used to (apparently) great effect in 2016.
And that's always step #1. This type of content (DIAMOND HANDS HODL TO THE MOON APE STRONGS!!!!) is easy to spam everywhere, so more reasonable people are driven away or drowned in the noise.
Even if the userbase is bipartisan these extreme, emotional takes are guaranteed to take over by sheer volume unless the moderation steps in hard. I can't really blame the mods for failing to do that at the moment though, if I were them I'd probably have closed the sub temporarily...
This is entirely true, and easily verified by checking subreddit user overlap. WSB overlaps heavily with a number of right-wing subreddits, and, naturally, /r/unemployment.
I agree, maintaining two popular distro's is pretty distracting and a potential waste of resources. But CentOS was just RHEL with the branding removed, I'm not sure it was that much of a headache to maintain.
IMO CentOS was kind of a bait to get people into the tent, and then if they needed help once using it across all of their infra they would eventually have to migrate to RHEL w/ enterprise support.
Also what confuses me here, is that they claim CentOS Stream is going to be the cutting-edge distro for RHEL... however Fedora already serves that purpose.
The explanation I've read for the difference between Fedora and CentOS Stream is that RHEL branches from Fedora at major releases, but those are so far apart that there could be years and massive divergences between today's Fedora and the RHEL 8.x release that's about to come out. So CentOS Stream is the dynamically updating "thing that will become the next RHEL 8.x" and Fedora is "things that will go into RHEL 9 one day". Basically CentOS changes from "whatever was in the previous RHEL point release" to "whatever will be in the next RHEL point release".
I've been watching the way OpenSuse is matching binaries with SLES. This is something CentOS never had. The binaries were generated from the same source, but inevitably had some differences.
It would be much simpler for them to provide a version of Redhat that could be run without subscriptions and some way for it to convert to Subscriptions.
This just shows not everyone is perfect, and never will be. Twitter unfortunately makes it simple for people to output their unfiltered thought. I feel like we'd find something uncouth about anyone if we knew all of their unfiltered thoughts.
Perfect is completely subjective, which is my entire point. I personally enjoy the quirks of Steve Wozniak.
> That's one of the best things about the platform.
I disagree, we're lacking critical thought in many places and very influential people not thinking critically about what they are about to tweet is not helping anyone.
I'll bet he knows intellectually what is and isn't diplomatic or good PR for himself and his companies on Twitter. He simply doesn't care to worry about it.
Physical borders, yes it would be near impossible to conquer us. But our digital borders (social media) are wide open. You use the power of a beast to destroy itself.
Anecdotally, I don’t know anyone in the windows / .NET world that is using chef, or have used it and stuck with it. Most people on that platform seem to gravitate to Chocolatey. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any using Chef primarily but it’s pretty rare it seems.
Chocolatey and Chef aren't rivalrous. When I've managed Windows/Linux mixed environments before, I did use Chef, and I used Chef to install Chocolatey packages.
Chef isn't just CM, it's also a lot of policy enforcement tooling these days. I don't have much use for it anymore but it does have its niche.
Chocolatey is a proxy-package manager, automates fetching packages off the Internet installing them (often through the packages own .msi or other installer). So it doesn't compete against Chef any more than yum or apt-get or Homebrew competes with Chef. Chef supports Chocolatey directly.
That being said, the experience on Windows is abysmal. The implementation with ruby on Windows is sloooooooow. You wait seconds just to get things like version.
Agreed. Which is why I find it odd that their products are in a mismatch of verticals. This strategy only makes sense if more acquisitions are on the way.
What is Progress’s track record with open source? Recently a lot of people have had to switch to Cinc if they wanted to continue using Chef without paying an enterprise license.
As one of those people, I just hope they don’t try to close the doors on the Cinc community.
How is antifa intimidating and attacking political dissenters not closer to a truer authoritarian accusation? I’m not sure where the “antifa is not violent” gaslighting is stemming from, but there’s a tremendous amount of YouTube footage that anyone can objectively discern from what a violent group of people looks like. The violence is not just them, it’s also right wing agitators such as patriot prayer and the proud boys. All groups involved are the foot soldiers for the ideology they represent.
You can argue antifa isn’t a mob and are just a small agitator involved in an overwhelming complex culture war, but that doesn’t negate their actions that have been documented.
The first problem is when people try to treat antifa as an organization rather than as a loose ideology that is supported by groups across a wide spectrum, and then tries to use that to assign guilt by correlation.
E.g. the original antifa was set up by the KPD (pre-war German communist party), but many modern antifa groups use logos that incorporates symbols that were used by the SPD to explicitly attack the KPD and Hitler (and Papen; who eventually demonstrated how dangerous he was by being the person who brought Hitler to power) who they saw as just as authoritarian as Hitler (with good reason - KPD were Stalinists). E.g. you might recognise the 3 arrows from this poster [1].
You'll find antifa groups coming out of groups with political ideologies that are close to mortal enemies. The only things they have in common is opposition to fascism and some general symbolism.
For me, the problem with contemporary Antifa movements is that either "fascism" is left undefined, or perhaps worse yet, it is defined in a way that actually excludes a lot of the earlier Leftist activism from which Antifa ultimately derives. For example, many of the intellectuals of May '68 (who did, after all, believe that they were anti-fascist and seeking to rid the world of vestiges of Nazism etc.) would actually be considered fascist by probably most self-identified Antifa today, because their framework was pre-feminism and pre-trans-activism.
I've yet to see any antifa groups push views of the type you're suggesting, though I don't doubt that they do exist, as the point I was making is that the labelling has been full of contradictions from the start:
KPD who formed the original Antifaschistische Aktion, was just as authoritarian as the fascists themselves, as as I pointed out, common modern symbols of antifa were symbols used against the KPD as well as the nazis.
When the term was resurrected again in modern use, it was resurrected by anarcho-syndicalists (hence why you often find antifa logos mixing black and red or entirely black) who rejected all forms of authoritarianism.
As such trying to treat them as anything resembling a single grouping, or even a single coherent ideology is meaningless, and does not in any way reflect reality.
They share a handful of ideas, and different groups place those ideas in entirely different frameworks and comingle them with entirely different other sets of ideas.
If you wanted to start a club, and you called this club the Ku Klux Klan, people would assume you were a bunch of racists, even if you insisted you totally weren't. Even if, in reality, you actually weren't.
"Antifa" is a bad name to choose if you don't want people to assume you're a bunch of communists, just like "Ku Klux Klan" is a bad name to choose if you don't want people to assume you're a bunch of racists.
Antifa has been far more diverse than that for decades before most people had heard about them.
There's now a massive amount of attempts to pretend they're a unified organisation with a single ideology that is almost exclusively coming from people wanting to discredit anti-fascism in general, who don't care at all that the image of antifa they're trying to push has very little to do with reality.
The original antifa and that modern antifa have a lot in common. They share the name, symbols, violence, and ideology. The original antifa was so awful that it made people want Hitler. The modern antifa might achieve a similar accomplishment.
> The original antifa and that modern antifa have a lot in common. They share the name, symbols, violence, and ideology
And yet a whole lot of antifa, uses symbols that were inherently opposed to the founders of the original Antifa, such as the three diagnonal arrows. And their symbols go across a massive range of symbolism of which a substantial proportion has no connection to the original AFA either.
You're demonstrating exactly the kind of attempt to conflate a whole range of groups with almost nothing in common by making things up about them. When I looked into antifa symbols a while back, I found many dozens of symbols that had no connection to the original AFA at all, but had links to all kinds of other movements. Their ideologies are similarly varied.
Already the "original" of the modern antifa explicitly used symbolism, through incorporating black for anarchism, that stood in direct opposition to the views of the KPD who founded the original.
The only thing they have in common is opposition to fascism. Everything else varies along multiple axes, and suggesting they all "have a lot in common" comes across as flatly ignoring the evidence.
> The original antifa was so awful that it made people want Hitler.
I'm on the DevOps side as well going through the same transition, k8s also allows insane customization, and I have some colleagues that are delaying our rollout unintentionally so they can play around with developing more tooling for deployments which is really frustrating. The k8s scene seems to be filled with constant scope creep and refactoring to get it just perfect before use. Either way, I agree the benefits far outweigh this annoyance that I've experienced. I'm so excited to work on developing tooling instead with my time.
However, I don't think we're free entirely from managing servers the old way with Chef / Puppet / Ansible, unless you're purely hosted there's still the rule of thumb you shouldn't run services that hold state in k8s. But with persistent vol's I do see that changing, though I'm not sure if everyone agree's that's a good idea.