yes, node is available on several platforms.
(but docker is linux only for the time being :D)

actually, this whole silver bullet 'stack' approach is nonsense. back in the days of lamp there were far fewer options, there was also little expertise with 'modern' webapps and high availability, it could make sense branding something like 'lamp' and have it distributed to developers and almost preinstalled on private servers. those days are gone, today there are many tools you can combine in different ways to suit any kind of project.

interesting. care to elaborate?

isn't that true for any platform. and, do you really use stuff in production without knowing "exactly" what you are doing?

adding nodes to shard data seems like a straightforward scaling strategy. how does this not scale well? what problems are you having?

how are multi-host deployments exclusive to 'node stuff'? don't you need infrastructure and trained devs for any deployment? what are you comparing?

honestly, i find braindead hype as delusional as your reactionary attitude and insubstantial claims.

that's exactly what i mean, yes. the u.s., russia, israel, nato ... all of them are. people here seem to find this to be normal, even acceptable. they are actually worried about it not becoming public. like it's okay to kill and burn as long as you can't see it, and you keep the butchers out of harm. just ... wow!

it's easier than that: soldiers are not supposed to be carrying out covert operations in foreign countries the aren't officially at war with. just let them tweet, what's the problem?

what are you smoking? western implication in the orange revolution, the euromaidan and the current civil war has been constant, obvious, even public and is well documented.

gosh, sounds terrible. like being expelled from your sect or something ...

if i got this right, the unauthorized cross-app resource access is a design flaw in the way different apps are allowed to interact. the apps are already out there. there is no fix unless you are willing to fix all affected apps as well, or break them.

this is a very serious issue and apple's silence and inaction is truly astonishing. at least some mitigation patch would be in place, asking the user's permission whenever any such interactions are about to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
i almost peed in my pants with "the whole system is backed by the security and reliability of microsoft cloud".

oh, well, it's just about a popularity contest for a sock puppet, i guess propietary closed software and hardware will do ...

isis and al qaeda? you're watching way too much television, son.

read tfa. this is about some complete morons' desire to make ciphered communication between users transparent to agencies, which is suicidal.

only if you can trust those developers to be available and loyal. for years. industry has a VERY hard time promoting loyalty, and panics at the sole idea of losing control. hence 'replaceable' professionals are the way to go.

it is also much easier to foster loyalty with a few key people who doesn't know jack shit about much anything (so they'll have a hard time finding an equivalent opportunity) than with a lot of developers who are in high demand in the industry.

don't get mad at me, you're totally right, but that's what it is. and I think it's not that much about cost but about the very nature of modern enterprise: externalize everything you possibly can.

the problem is no religion (except zen, afaik) provides a method to approach those questions, but random invented answers so you stop asking.

we humans are indeed religious beings, but most human religions are bullshit. keyword: crowd control.

ancient japanese got it right, they were utterly tolerant about religion which was considered a private affair (as it should). this could only be so because their society was already so strictly classed and the authority so indisputable that they didn't need to use religion for that.

yes, they did slaughter some christians at some point. but only after realizing how they were creeping for influence and power. nobody had invited them, after all.

believe me, you would have a hard time debating with someone who seriously insists he (and everything around him) was created by a flying spaghetti monster, although you can't prove that's impossible.

if you want to assert bullshit like "a woman spontaneously conceived the son of god" then that's your problem, pal. and i've no problem at all with the crap you may believe, as long as you don't want me to behave according to your beliefs. be rational, or forget about being taken seriously.

every novel has one. the earliest record in jesus' life which is historically accepted is that he was baptized, some few years before death. everything before that is just gospell, brought up almost a century after the facts to give the emerging new cult some proper mythical background. regardless of what the usual meaning of 'virgin' was at the time, the gospells actually meant 'conceived without bang' because that's the dogma they explicitly established, that he was the son of god blablabla. yes, people was gullible at the time ... oh, wait!

didn't you watch brian's life, you blasphemous clod??

you don get it. of course there are bugs. the aim is not a defect free system, but to avoid a total catastrophe in a system built and maintained by waves of replaceable monkeys. it's already remarkable that it works at all, but yes, this is the industry average. shrug.

with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

this is also necessary condition for 'theft' in about any legal code. this condition is not met in this case, and unless you can prove it is, your discourse just doesn't stand.

if you're betting on 'loss of rightful revenue', it's a skewed and controversial concept. the problem here is the term 'rightful' which is a nebulose trying to coerce 'their right to sell' into 'my obligation to buy'. needless to say, i don't buy it. but even then, assuming some imaginary context where that 'rightful revenue' really existed ... you can't 'deprive' someone of something they never had. so without deprivation it can't possibly be theft, and i'm not a thief. you should be really able to grasp this simple and fundamental fact.

call it something else. take your pick, i don't care. but calling it theft is irrational or dishonest or both.

sigh ... since you insist in totally ignoring the accepted meaning of 'theft' i assume you are not interested in any rational discussion whatsoever. as for me, i'm not interested in watching you writing 'thief' in a loop, in bold caps and with exclamation marks, as if you were having a mental breakdown. you have made your point. have a cookie. take care.