I mean, you're right -- but security and maintainability aside doesn't it feel odd to advocate against the use of a universal method and FOR the use of one of many hundreds of package managers for NIX operating systems that claims to have gotten it right?
Adding maintenance overhead to a FOSS project to support a package manager is one thing, adding support for every Flavor Of The Week package manager after that initial time investment is tougher, especially when the first one is no longer en vogue.
tl;dr : the thousands of ways to package data for NIX creates a situation in which hurts maintainability unless the package maintainer lucks into picking the one that their crowd wants for any length of time. Piping data from curl works just about anywhere, even if it's a huge security faux-pas waiting to happen.
semi-unrelated aside : it strikes me as humorous that people on that side of OS aisle have cared so much about pipes being a security issue for years and years, whereas on the MS side of things people still distribute (sometimes unsigned) binaries all over the place, from all over the place, by any random mary/joe. (not to say that that's not the case on the nix side, but it feels more commonplace in MS land, that's for sure.)
I have had experiences where you do video interviews. When interviewing the audio is off and what is happening is the person answering is on speaker phone and the guy you are looking at is pretending to talk.
The simplest way to discover is ask the color of your shirt.
Are you talking about the cloud host to cloud host networking or the POD networking inside the single host ?
The dizzying amount of NAT layers has to be killing performance. I haven't had the chance to ever sit down and unravel a system running a good load. The lack of TCP tuning combined with the required connection tracking is interesting to think about
i still dont understand why nearly all CNI's are so hell bent on implementing a dozen layers of NAT to tunnel their overlay networks, instead of implementing a proper control plane to automate it all away between routes.
Calico seems to be doing it semi-okeish, and even their the control plane is kind of unfinished?
The only software based solution which seem to properly have this figured out is VMware NSX-T. (i am not counting all the traditional overlay networks in use by ISP's based on MPLS/BGP).
I believe Azure CNI is pretty much point-to-point.
Azure Load Balancers and their software defined network use packet header rewriting at the host level to bypass the need for the traffic to physically traverse a load balancer appliance or a NAT appliance. They're generally rewritten when they arrive to the host hypervisor. This is done in hardware via an FPGA inline with the NICs. (This requires "Accelerated Networking" to be enabled, but that's the default in v4 VMs and required for v5 VMs.)
I'm not certain, but I believe AWS does something similar for their VMs. (Their marketing material mentions that they use a custom ASIC instead of an FPGA like Azure.)
With Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), you can use the Azure CNI, which gives each Pod a unique IP address on the Azure Virtual Network. I can't confirm, but I'm reasonably certain that this means that Pod-to-Pod traffic is direct, with no NAT appliance or software in the way. Essentially the host NICs do the address translation inline at line rate and essentially zero latency.
However, PaaS platforms like Azure App Service or Azure SQL Database are very bad in comparison. They proxy and tunnel and NAT, all in software. I've seen latencies north of 7 milliseconds within a region!
Before you even get to the CNI, I think AWS VM to internet is at least 3 NAT layers.
So we have 3 layers from container to pod. The virtual host kernel is tracking those layers. Once connection to one container is 3 tracked connections. Then you have whatever else you put on top to go in and out of the internet.
The funny think to me is HaProxy recommended getting rid of connection tracking for performance while everyone is doubling down on that alone and calling it performant.
As a matter of physical reality, the universe owes us nothing. It was quite content to allow such things as the Atlantic slave trade and the Holocaust, which took people’s lives completely out of their own hands and utterly destroyed them. Were those people “entitled” to better? The question is, I think, utterly meaningless. Were these morally abhorrent events that should never be repeated? From my own moral point of view, and that of many other people, absolutely.
The effort of changing society to give more people more opportunity is generally undertaken on a moral basis alone. If you aren’t convinced by the premise, asking leading moral questions as if they have objective answers isn’t going to tell you anything you don’t already “know”, and it also isn’t going to provoke any kind of useful discussion around how we might implement real policies to this effect.
In the context of this thread, and in particular the top level comment you initially replied to, who do you imagine is suggesting we teach people that?
We have the rich who use the govt to oppress the people and preserve their wealth.
We have the poor who think the govt will help them
We have a large group of people who just want to work to survive
What rules would you put in place and how would you go about doing that to ensure the rich / powerful didnt corrupt the system ?
The US was designed with a constitution defining the rules a govt could work within and the bill of rights was added to ensure the govt didnt enroach on the peoples rights so they could control the govt
This design failed as did all the rest... why ?
Because people are inherently lazy and dont want to be bothered. So you think its better to simply feed these folks and ensure they are ok will somehow motivate them to work ?
Capitalism works better than most systems and in fact many of the so called socialist countries arent. They are capitalist countries that have strong social programs funded by said capitalism
Perhaps instead of letting the govt get away with violating the rules it was bound by we start enforcing the rules ?
> So you think its better to simply feed these folks and ensure they are ok will somehow motivate them to work ?
Care to show me where I said any such thing, or even implied it?
> Perhaps instead of letting the govt get away with violating the rules it was bound by we start enforcing the rules ?
To what end? I feel like you’re just agreeing with the sentiment of the top level comment, that we need to do a better job ensuring that social mobility is more than an illusion.
I also feel like you’re ascribing some rabid anti-capitalist sentiment to me and/or the top level commenter when, in fact (again), I don’t think either of us expressed any such sentiment, even implicitly. I happen to agree (?) with you that capitalism in concert with strong social programs to ensure the independence and mobility of labor (in economics I believe we may call that “liquidity”, which is said to increase allocative efficiency) is the right way to go.
>And yes I've seen the diagrams and the theory behind this. But I've become more and more suspicious of bureaucracy and process that tries to fight the symptoms of lack of trust and human connection.
This resonates but what I have seen is when you engage a company that has this model you have to emulate their model to fit within their needs, then you get infected with it.
I do get it, using a lot of water in a very hot and sunny place leads to amazing crop results. The only issue with that is that the water they are pumping probably took decades to accumulate to that level, that strategy will just stop working abruptly very soon.
we should look at the big picture not just the percentages that those people are taxed at the end. Because in many cases the leading question is: How come they earn so much more than every one else? Is it through sheer talent and grit or is there something else going on? Inheritance, structures that benefit those with capital over those who labor, connections with the right people etc. etc. And after analyzing all that coming back to the question whether someone should earn 10.000 as much as another person who works the same hours? Should someone earn billions in a year and then use it for moon shots like going to mars? Is that what the society needs or can afford right now? Maybe. But for as long as there are people who work 40 hours a week and cannot afford a healthy life (e.g. having no trouble coming up with emergency money, dont have to commute 2h just to get to their minimum wage job etc.), there certainly is a structural problem going on. This structural problem can only be solved if - and that's the most important point - wealth is shared more equally. Meaning taxation (and all the structures that lead to income) has to take more from those who earn more and give to those who cannot give more. Well, that's if we want to live in a social society, if not forget what I said.
I think any wealth (not income!) over something like 1M should be confiscated. :) There's no reason to have that much money and there's no way you personally have generated that wealth, most likely you just invested money early enough in something sucessful to extort money from it. This may sound provocating but it's actually quite a sound model, but which would also mean reconstructing what we mean by the economy... No capitalistic ownership (eg investment is at most a loan, you don't get propriety shares in exchange), no for-profit renting, ...
And obviously funnelling all that money and economic capital to some central state isn't gonna go well so levels below and above the state need to be reinforced.
This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history.
First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. But that aside, you'd stifle most incentive to innovate, provide jobs, and live in your country. Anyone who thought they might pass your 1M limit will just leave to a country that doesn't do that. No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the US and you'd have to pay me quite a lot to accept a green card. I certainly wouldn't take it if offered freely, because it comes with a major tax liability. There are nicer places in the world by a variety of metrics.
So if you chase away everyone with wealth you'll be left paying 100% of the taxes instead of 60% and with no jobs to pay them with. Good luck with that!
Look to Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela for examples of how that plays out.
> This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history.
Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said). Go study for yourselve before insulting right and left. I know i did, i'm reading monthly issues of "le monde diplomatique".
> First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money.
Perhaps instead of 1M$ you'd prefer if i say "the equivalent of 100K ton of wheat at retail price"? Obviously i'm talking from the perspective of my local living standard which is west-european 500M people city.
> No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the US
None taken, me neither.
> So if you chase away everyone with wealth you'll be left paying 100% of the taxes instead of 60% and with no jobs to pay them with. Good luck with that!
Ok so that's the only argument of your comment. It has been debunked time and time again that for individuals, fleeing a country because of taxes is minimal. Corporations do that. And it can be fought by taxing international transactions (which every sane economy but the EU does anyway). Yes, in the end, it becomes a frontal fight between the financial and industrial establishment and your local economy, which obviously will need some negotiation because they can hurt you, but let it be clear that without them, it would work quite well (and in reverse, in my economy, it would be quite hard to practically be capitalistic). I don't even want to eradicate capitalism, i'd just want to not mainly depend on it for living and tip the balance to a much more reasonable state.
> Look to Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela for examples of how that plays out.
You realize that my arguments were communist-ish? You're not gonna scare me off pointing at these countries! Obviously things went bad because the liberals virtually control the world, so these countries had to fight for everything, which breaks at some point. And obviously i'm not defending dictatorship (and please note i'm not using this strawman of the numereous capitalistic dictatorship against you).
>(he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said).
Well true, he doesn't say exactly what you said, because he doesn't anything like what you're saying. Taxing wealth above the relatively low ceiling of 1M USD at 100% would be ridiculous. He is, though, in favour of a progressive tax system that, crucially, reduces inequality below “tolerable” levels, where an “intolerable level” is a level which results in imbalances of power which undermine or destroy democratic rule and oppress those without wealth.
So his practicable suggestion is a global coordinated effort to tax wealth and reduce inequality, which his utopian suggestion is a trans-national socialist economy with true democratic control over the economy.
How would you reduce wealth inequality without directly or indirectly limiting the maximum amount of wealth? I believe the citation of Picketty is appropriate given that. I believe that the main solution is indeed limiting indirectly, but that there should additionally be a hard cap on the wealth an individual is able to control. 1M, 100M, i could've said any number, it's not the point (i said 1M because that's probably a level above which your lifestyle doesn't meaningfully improve, you're just having more luxuous luxury). One deep problem with current capitalism imho is the implicit goal of unending growth. Putting a hard cap would break that down. It's the same thing for corporation: they always want/need to get larger. It's not useful for anybody but the owners and actually it creates wrong incentives: optimizing for relative efficiency (result/resources) with no regard for constants instead of minimizing absolute resources for a given fixed production goal.
Also i'm not really sure what's so "ridiculous" about it. I'm not saying the next president of random country should do that. But after sufficient transitioning, in a state of the economy where we have "tolerable" inquality, we should lock it with a hard cap.
To make it even clearer, i believe most "things" should have a cap on how much you're able to posess (perhaps with exceptional derogations, or additional taxation): the number of houses, cars, land, gas, plane travels, eletronics, clothes. For most people it wouldn't be a constraint as the cap would be on the level at which you can realisticaly use it personally, but i think achieving that would prove a deep shift in mentality.
> Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said
Yes, he didn't say anything remotely like you said. It's disingenuous to cite Picketty as if he would support your position.
> has been debunked time and time again that for individuals, fleeing a country because of taxes is minimal.
Because the difference in taxation is minimal. I used to live in Panama, I've personally meet people who fled tax rates in their home country. The low taxes was also my favorite thing about living in Panama. Personal anecdotes aside, what you're proposing is drastic enough that the emigration won't be minimal, it will be a mass exodus of the wealthy - you know the people paying for 40% of the services you benefit from.
> You realize that my arguments were communist-ish? You're not gonna scare me off pointing at these countries! Obviously things went bad because the liberals virtually control the world, so these countries had to fight for everything, which breaks at some point.
I don't know where to start with that without violating site guidelines and being uncivil to your intellect. Actually are you trolling me? I have trouble believing you could be serious right now.
There's a lot of bigger reasons communism failed. Your proposal would fail for much the same reasons. This comment of yours is so ignorant of history it is mind boggling.
You are quick to insult people's intellect while spouting western propaganda.
People love to trot out the USSR as a failure, ignoring that a major part of that failure was due to Perestroika and Gorbachev.
As for Cuba, the US has waged terrorist campaign against them for 70ish years. Venezuela has had to deal with US interference and attempted coups as well.
You can't talk about communist/socialist societies and completely ignore the external forces acting against them.
If you believe communism works, how is that not an indictment of your intellect after a century of examples to the contrary - and not just a few, there had been a 100% failure rate. The only communist counties they did well essentially embraced capitalism. Either you are totally ignorant of history and arguing out of your depth or you are probably not that bright.
You didn't even address what I said, and instead resorted back to black and white thinking. All while telling me I am the stupid one. Okay.
P.S. Cuba and Vietnam are still around and still socialist.
Edit: Actually, looking at all your arguments here, you just scream about how socialism doesn't work and if you disagree then you're dumb. Get better, please.
I visited Cuba recently. It's improving now that they're embracing capitalism, partially.
But I still saw people plowing fields with oxen. I've seen very poor people in developing countries, but I haven't seen that first hand. The level of poverty in Cuba is pretty bad still.
You are so educated, surely you can provide a short summary explaining your views.
>But I still saw people plowing fields with oxen. I've seen very poor people in developing countries, but I haven't seen that first hand. The level of poverty in Cuba is pretty bad still.
Do you think that has anything to do with the US embargo on Cuba? (Y'know, one of those external forces I was talking about originally).
Things went bad in Soviet Russia because liberals virtually control the world? Baloney. Liberals controlling the non-communist world didn't make Soviet central planning less able than capitalism to deliver goods. It didn't make Soviet workers less motivated than capitalist workers.
Jobs don't need to be "created". Either there's stuff to do for people to live correctly or there isn't. If there is, try to find people who'd like to do it. If nobody wants, either people don't really need it, or it's a chore and organize it fairly and locally (division of labour makes no sense for non-qualified chores, it's just a byproduct of inquality: i'm not taking out my neighboors trash, what we could do tho is mutualize our chores). Then distribute the result of this work fairly. Everything else than life-support can be done without too much constraints, but i strongly believe that even that won't "naturally" be too much capitalistic.
Ironically the success of unix/linux is that it is a very effective and uniform abstraction to accessing network, compute, storage and memory resources.
The big win of kubernetes is not that it lets you get access to computational resources easier (yaml rather than systemd scripts) but that it is a temporary escape on the "file a ticket to get new compute resources" (temporary because just like picking up hardware for the data center goes from just buy it to get it approved; VM creation goes from just click a button to what's your cost center and VP signoff; new namespace creation hasn't had time to get put into service now, but it will be). Like Docker let developers bypass restrictive OS imaging, k8s lets developers spin up more resources with less constraint. It's not really about the technical abstractions, running a go binary on bare metal is not different (only faster) than running it in a k8s cluster except I have no way to get permission to run it on bare metal.
And my skills are shifting from "maximizing the product value delivered by this heap of hardware" to "minimizing the cost of the MVP in this cloud billing environment." Before if we had unused compute, we'd stick a cache in or precompute something that will reduce latency for customers down the line. Now, we are like, don't do that computation, it mightn't be needed.
I don't really see any value in automation of creating k8s clusters.
From my point of view 80-90% of software people doesn't need k8s really.
There is strong trend to have "low code-no code" at some point we want abstraction of CI/CD and having small apps that can be built by specialists without need for developers. With k8s managed by cloud vendors we are in the middle of "no infra", cloud vendors will be managing k8s clusters but it is not going to be that everyone wants to spin up his own cluster. There is not enough market for higher infra abstraction, there is enough market for level where we are at.
Whatever we do, please do not solve the actual root issue under any circumstances. That will not do. We need to stick another layer on top of the pile so we can have conferences and hashtags about it.
>Because people have the memoized knowledge that "static linking old and bad",
It feels to me that the container mentality wants to abstract the complexity of the computing to the point they are creating issues that were solved before then layering that on a complex OS and pretending the OS isnt required |
