Unfortunately, Jazz has fallen out of favor in the United States. America, with a population of over three hundred million, accounts for about 1% of the global Jazz market. Japan is the biggest and has been for the last two decades. Europe is second with France, the UK and Sweden being epicenters of both musicians and listeners.
You can use Bhyve and run Docker in a Linux virtual machine. Docker works similarly under MacOS using the Hypervisor Framework. FreeBSD would need to radically change in order to implement Docker natively.
I'm not sure the default jail utility is quite as flexible as what Linux namespaces+cgroups can do.
It does look like most of what really matters does exist in some form, and I'd guess any important cases that don't exist could be fixed with a few new simple sysctl options.
However, BSD's do not guarantee that their userlands will work with a mismatched kernel. Sure, it often does work, hence why jails only give a warning on mismatch rather than refuse to run at all.
Also containers are most useful when most containers you want are actually available for your platform. Unless you use the Linux Emulation features, I'd suspect that relatively few containers would be mode available to run on FreeBSD. And the problem with Linux personality systems is that while many programs will work fine with them, there will always be some Linux syscalls that are unimplemented, or have important limitations/differences. So while many programs may work, some will not work. Even if the system call is fully supported, not all use cases will be. For example, not every file system Linux supports will be mountable, and programs could be using loopback mounts that need such support for weird reasons (I'd bet has made an app-bundle system for linux that relies on loopback mounting ext4).
There is a reason why Microsoft abandoned the personality like implementation of WSL1 in favor of virtualization for WSL2. Now admittedly, things are not nearly as bad on FreeBSD, since implementing one Unix-like personality in a different Unix is going to be easier and work better than trying to implement it on a decidedly non-Unix kernel. But even so, there will always be some programs (however obscure) that won't work right, while virtualization can largely avoid that. (Albeit with new limitations like not being able to easily access host hardware).
Noth of the above is at all a dealbreaker. containerd and docker support windows containers which have many of the above mentioned concerns, and many additional ones like the restrictions on distributing the windows base images.
What really needs to happen for jail support for docker is to come up with the FreeBSD specific options for the OCI spec, implement an OCI runtime based on jails, add support for setting the OS specific options in containerd, and implement needed network support in dockerd. (containerd leaves networking setup to its caller, as docker has different opinions than kubernetes for example).
The containerd people will almost certainly not object to the needed patches. If I had to guess, the docker maintainer's big concerns over a moby patch will be the overhead of supporting the needed patches (since FreeBSD will rightfully be seen as far more niche than Linux), and that the end-user experience of various docker command lines work more or less as users expect. (I.e. not more different from docker-on-linux than docker-for-windows-containers is). None of this is at all insurmountable.
> However, BSD's do not guarantee that their userlands will work with a mismatched kernel. Sure, it often does work, hence why jails only give a warning on mismatch rather than refuse to run at all.
FWIW, FreeBSD tends to go to pretty great lengths to ensure newer kernel with older userland works. A stock GENERIC kernel comes with COMPAT_FREEBSD* options back to COMPAT_FREEBSD4, and parts of the project's infrastructure tend to explicitly rely on at least supported releases to be functional in a jail on a -CURRENT kernel.
Interesting, and good to hear. I know the other BSDs have a very different view of things. I had heard that Linux was the only OS with a stable kernel ABI guarantee. If FreeBSD does too, that certainly is better.
Windows for example makes zero guarantees there. There are a lot of syscalls that they won't renumber because some applications have taken a dependency on using them directly, but officially using a syscall without going through NTDLL (or wherever the stub is located for private syscalls) is unsupported. Those syscalls they are not keeping fixed for compatibility can and do change from version to version. Mostly in numbering, but changes to semantics or arguments can happen too. Hence Windows Containers can only run in separate namespaces on a matching kernel version, and the hyper-v isolation (a.k.a. virtualization) option for containers is needed for mismatched versions.
So creating an OCI runtime that wraps jails, adding any needed support for FreeBSD specific OCI container settings to containerd, and adding the needed code for things like networking to moby/moby (a.k.a. docker) sounds very feasible to me if some FreeBSD hacker wanted to get proper docker support. Offering Linux Emulation as an experimental option top be able to run more containers would be an added bonus, and should be feasible, since they once had that working with their old unofficial (presumably pre-containerd) builds of docker.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFlyBSD are not the same operating systems, they don't share the same kernel. There are custom distributions of FreeBSD for specific use cases, such as OPNsense, but they are the same operating system and kernel as FreeBSD.
No, the 2015 Grand Cherokee shifter doesn't randomly change gears. There are known cases of it being accidentally hit from a passenger since there is no locking mechanism. That said, it is standard procedure to engage the parking brake and anybody that doesn't is a bad driver.
That car had two indicators for park, on the center console and the dashboard which Yelchin ignored. Plus, he never engaged the parking brake, which is standard procedure. His death was his own fault.
a) My much cheaper car engages the brake automatically when I stop it and turn the engine off.
b) To engage the brake, you have to push the lever, and then it moves back to its original location, like a joystick. This means that there's no positive tactile feedback that the brake is engaged
To quote:
"The problem is that the "Monostable" design doesn’t provide any meaningful feedback about what gear you’re in — it returns to the center position after each shift. To completely confirm if you’re in drive or park or reverse, you have to look at either the LEDs on the shifter (often covered by your palm) or the digital display in the instrument cluster. This has confused thousands of people, led to over a hundred injuries, and now potentially a death. And it’s all because of a design that prioritizes screens over switches."
The 2014-2015 Grand Cherokee was recalled because of 304 vehicle rollaway incidents, 117 crashes, and a death.
There is no excuse for this kind of "too clever" design.
People drive while tired. People drive in emergency situations. People drive while distracted by screaming infants.
You can't blame dangerously bad user interface design on the users. Essential safety settings should be designed so that the operator falls into the pit of success instead of stumbling into the pit of deadly failure.
The recall didn't involve any physical change, it was a firmware update that engaged the parking brake when the transmission is shifted into park. This shifter design came over from Mercedes, where it was used successfully.
A motor vehicle is a heavy machine which requires proper operation because it can cause serious injury and death. This is no different than operating a forklift. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. If folks don't read the operating manual and can't successfully operate a motor vehicle, they have no business driving.
That's a set of goalposts that move automatically to render any argument against it invalid.
No matter how counter-intuitive, error-prone, or difficult the control interface of an automobile is made to be, you can always say: "Well, if you can't figure it out, don't drive!"
Would you fly on a plane designed with this attitude? "It'll drop out of the sky if you accidentally bump anything, without a noticeable warning, but pilots that can't handle flying shouldn't be in the cockpit anyway!"
But seriously: would you get on a 737 MAX without the MCAS fixed?
Would you get in a 737 MAX with an unfixed MCAS a decade after the MCAS incident, when people have forgotten? With a new pilot that had never heard of the two specific crashes?
Or would you insist in flying in a plane designed not to crash into the ground in ways that's counterintuitive for the pilots to deal with?
Similarly, would you let your relatives drive a 2014 model Jeep Grand Cherokee that hadn't been recalled and had the parking brake changed to be automatic? Would you trust your Grandmother to check the tiny little light every time that will stop her dying, or would you take it to the shop for her so that she doesn't have to?
I read (or skim) car operating manuals, but that's because I'm technically minded, and curious. I know a lot of people who don't bother, and haven't read a car manual in their lives: if they have "no business driving", there would be a lot less drivers on the road.
All aspects of driving should be made as intuitive as possible, from the operator controls to the fonts on road signs. Adding more mental work makes a dangerous task even more so.
No. The consumer and SOHO tape market died around 2000 as companies sold off their business units and/or went bankrupt. Trickle down in the LTO range is buying a refurbished drive that is several generations behind and you better have SCSI or SAS in your computer.
AB5 was in response to the Dynamex ruling, which threw out the Borello test used to determine whether workers are employees or contractors. The California Supreme Court created a new standard that all workers are presumed to be employees and the burden is on the employer to prove workers are contractors under the ABC test. If AB5 didn't pass, the vast majority of workers would be considered employees.
All of the following conditions must be met in order for the worker to be classified as a contractor. (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
You are making an assumption that Republicans only donated to Trump and not to Biden. The Bloomberg article is about donations based on profession and large employers, not political affiliation or party.
He did. He's also probably correct. I'm pretty sure R/D affiliation is a fantastic feature for tracking the end target of any specific donation. A small subset of R's might donate to Biden, but those are likely swamped by the general split across party lines.
Unfortunately, Jazz has fallen out of favor in the United States. America, with a population of over three hundred million, accounts for about 1% of the global Jazz market. Japan is the biggest and has been for the last two decades. Europe is second with France, the UK and Sweden being epicenters of both musicians and listeners.