What blogs discuss btrfs features that should never be used under any circumstances?

Could you elaborate on your example? I not understanding what commands make it possible to mount a volume "under multiple parents" how this differs from shared or bind mounts. I can mount an XFS volume on two separate mountpoints, not a big deal. Btrfs volumes can't be snapshot, just their subvolumes, maybe that's what you're referring to? The lack of recursively snapshotable nested subvolumes?

Btrfs and ZFS are different when it comes to snapshots. In Btrfs snapshots are subvolumes that are "prefilled". They aren't otherwise unique like they are on ZFS. And that means there isn't really a parent child relationship on Btrfs, you can delete "parent" subvolumes that have "child" snapshots, unlike on ZFS.

I'd be all for more enforcement of the rules already on the books. For example, cyclists should be fined $100 for each 1 mph over 15mph (the posted limit) on multi-use bike/dog/pedestrian paths. Motorists running red lights, the fine should make them wonder if they'll be able to make rent for the next two or three months. Really red light running by cars should be something like a $5000 fine. It should be really painfully obscene. SUV's have a 2x surcharge, so $10,000 fine.

Cyclists get a $100 fine for darting in and out of cars, when instead they should hog the whole lane just like a car does. Motorists get a $100 fine for not stopping 5 feet before a crosswalk or blocking it, or blocking any intersection. And both need $100 fines for not signaling. I think it's worse for cars to not signal, because cyclists actually really depend on this notification more than motorists. For cyclists it's really precarious to brake and do a sustained hand signal, but something is better than nothing.

And with all this fine money I want better road paint from the government.

Oh and the angry cyclist? Realize he's angry because he just soiled his pants because a motorist scared the crap out of him.

No it's stupid people such as yourself who make it dangerous. You're not even aware of the law, by your insistence that they are "your roads" and that we should get off of them. C.R.S. 43-1-120 They are not only your damn roads.

"It is in the best interest of all Coloradans to promote transportation mode choice by enhancing safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians on or along the state highway system... The department and its subdivisions shall provide transportation infrastructure that accommodates bicycle and pedestrian use of public streets in a manner that is safe and reliable for all users of public streets..."

This makes zero sense. I complete at most one and half strokes from stop sign to the center of the intersection, there is no way i've shifting once, let alone to the highest gear, let alone at full speed. That's just nutty. Most people have crap gears, or no gears, so your expectation of how others ought to behave is way off.

In many states I'm given the same rights and responsibilities as other drivers, bicycles are considered vehicles. So I get to hog the lane I'm in every bit as much as a car does. It is unsafe in many cases for cyclists to right to the right and invite split laning with cars as you suggest. That gives me far fewer outs when my choices are: straight and hit the pot hole, move a bit right and hit the curb, move a bit left and hit the car.

Can't manage to speed up? Seriously go suck a cucumber, you sound like a car driver who never rides a bike. You don't get to suggest what speed a cyclist should be going in order to be considered properly sharing the road. They get to decide this, as do cars.

No, drivers/cyclists/pedestrians completely lack understanding of the rules of the 4 way stop. The only predictability is that they're all f'n goddamn unpredictable primates, who will scream and fling shit at the first sign of trouble at a 4 way stop. Coming to a complete stop has nothing to do with it, because already the vast majority don't even realize that the complete stop at the stop sign line is how order is determined. Most think it's who arrived in the vicinity of the stop sign first, or it's the person "to the right", or they simply don't know or give a fuck and creep out waiting for a horn to tell them otherwise. Both middle finger and brake foot are on trigger alert, because they don't fucking know shit else.

The majority suck at the 4 way stop. They are predictably stupid.

Overwhelmingly, more than 3/4 of the time, as a cyclist coming up to a stop sign, cars do either an "oh fuck go now!" before they've completely stopped, or "oh fuck stop and don't move til he leaves" maneuver. It's panic. That's the rule. I have to either go through the intersection out of turn, wait a long long fucking time, or engrave invitations to cars to get them to go. And because I live in a state where tinted windows are legal and somehow common, I can't see shit about the other driver. Sometimes I think they're waiving at me, but they're too stupid to realize I can't fucking see them.

So that's how it really is. It's not like the current reality is unicorn shit where everyone gets along happily, follows the rules perfectly, and it's this one Idaho Stop idea of cyclists slowing down (a lot) but not having to completely stop, which is going to create chaos. If anything it will reduce it. Somewhat. Except in some cases when it doesn't.

It's an optimization. Making bikes come to a complete stop makes them really slow for a lot more time before, during, and after the stop sign. It's the equivalent of stopping your car, putting it in park, turning off the ignition, restarting the car, putting it in gear, and then going through the intersection. It certainly doesn't make anyone safer to make cyclists stop like cars.

As for cyclists yielding instead of stopping, it probably does make things confusing for drivers. As a professional trainer you no doubt know that the vast majority of American drivers are shit. Unlike most civilized nations, an uncle, or maybe even a pet, can be your driving instructor in the U.S. So making the system complicated with more exceptions to apparent rules might not be such a great idea. Yes, this is coddling stupid people who probably shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery in the first place, but we should be used to this. It's what defensive driving is all about.

The other thing, is that since a bike isn't heavy machinery, the penalty for others when the cyclist makes a mistake, is very low compared to car-on-cyclist mistakes.

But until the roads are better shared among drivers and cyclists, it's difficult to get cyclists off sidewalks, and in particular speeding cyclists off multi-use paths. They should be using streets or dedicated bike lanes instead. even though it's generally illegal for them to be there. And difficult to get speeding cyclists off multi-use pathways, when they should be on roads instead, but only if it's safe.

I'm not terribly sympathetic because it's basically a company saying "Oh you want ____? OK well ___ my _____".

But instead of responding with, "Umm, yeah so there's this phrase coming to mind and it's something like, please go ____ yourself, I'm not doing that." Instead it's, "Wow that really does suck, so just exactly how wide should I open... "

So tell me why some companies are being such complete wusses about this. Why do some of them still they think the arrangement they're agreeing to is supposed to be fair? And when they think it's not fair, why do they still agree to the arrangement? They don't do this with their primary business transactions, so why are they tolerating it with software?

Looks like Collabora charges $10 a pop for an SLA. If you wanted you could also contribute something to the Document Foundation which doesn't just operate LibreOffice but also supports the Document Liberation Project (no matter what, we're all going to need to take advantage of document conversion eventually), or hedge your bets and contribute something to the Apache Foundation (OpenOffice).

Yes I'm assuming PC's with OEM installed Windows and that's also an option for Office, but maybe not for VLAs. Expensive for what it is? Well, yeah but that's only because with the VLA you're paying a lot extra for a lot less insane license key management compared to the retail version. They've made license key management for retail copies essentially impossible, it's that impractical and why people pay more per unit for a VLA.

OpenOffice and LibreOffice, there's no license key to manage, let alone a license cost. Either we're talking about irrational decision making by companies who persist in using software with the deck stacked against their interests. Or the Microsoft Office has necessary functionality that OpenOffice or LibreOffice do not, like maybe macros. And no one wants to deal with the user revolt with a forced change.

And yes the subscription access I think is untenable because cloud. Why should any medium or large business in the U.S., let alone outside of it, have their documents on someone else's infrastructure? And why is IT management swallowing this bitter pill even though it's not in their best interest to be on a monthly/annual fee based platform? If they were ever to want to move down the road to a new platform, they couldn't quite cold turkey. They'd have to keep on paying possibly for years longer than necessary because, oops, no more persistent license.

What do you mean by "any updates"? ELS updates include security and major bug fixes, from year 10 to year 13. For any minor dot release you can choose EUS to extend the support for that minor dot release rather than upgrading to the next dot release.

Why doesn't the upgrade work? Oh you mean Vista. That's a really good point because that a huge part of the XP problem, is that people were scared shitless into not upgrading, so the fixation on XP was much stronger than it otherwise would have been. And now the upgrades to Windows 7 and Windows 8 are even more challenging for those XP users because it's such a huge change.

If you mean 5 years of Ubuntu LTS support isn't long enough, I think you can pay for longer LTS support from Canonical, and if not the Red Hat has a 10 year support program with feature enhancements, with an option for 3 more years of extended support. That's a long time. The hardware won't last that long.

More like less expensive overall for the Hampshire County, rather than more profitable. I wonder what the 50 year archiving plan for Word, Excel and Powerpoint looks like for a government entity. And funny how email is already open source the way it flows on the Internet among MTAs but then as soon as it gets to a Microsoft Exchange server all of that data is now proprietary. Now the county is encouraged to use proprietary solutions to archive it and also index it for searches. All of this exact same software used the same way all over the world by all of these city, county, state, federal governments and yet instead of sharing the same code base that they all own collectively, no they each pay billions in licensing fees and SLAs to support closed solutions that they effectively rent.

It's hardly any different than the mainframe days when PC's were first appearing on the market. Who would buy a PC? No one can support it in the business environment! Fast forward to 2011 and you have a bunch of pay outs by the big mainframe support companies to get their mainframe specialists to retire early.

It really depends on the software. Windows itself, negligible. Office, not much more. Specific software for an industry though, easily it's the salary for two or more engineers that could have been hired to work on the open source equivalent for your industry. They can make the overall code base better, thereby increasing the viability for everyone, and they can also add specific features just for your company. The various Service Level Agreements the IT department has, to support things they don't know enough about, are also expensive. And there isn't just one SLA. Even governments have SLA with NetApp for something basic like storage, which is rather ridiculous they don't have such on-going specialized need available in-house.

The cost of archiving if you're a government is probably significant also. I think it's malfeasance for governments to use proprietary document formats for anything. The vast majority of their internal documents, which are not public facing, are in proprietary Word, Excel, and Powerpoint formats. Anyone who wants to read them must have that software. How is this going to be read in 10 years? Government archivists are probably printing this shit out, medium term archiving the paper, and long term if deemed important enough it probably still goes on f'n microfische because asshats like this CIO insist on using software that stores data in proprietary formats.

The real issue isn't cost of licensing. It's cost of freedom to access your data at any time in the future, and do whatever you want with the software. You own your copy of open source software. You don't own Microsoft Office. It's licensed. And for Office 365, it's not perpetual. If you stop paying, you lose access.

FAR 101 subpart B applies to moored balloons and kites. It can't be flown more than 500' above the ground, must be at least 500' below the base of a cloud, and not in less than 3 miles visibility, nor within 5 miles of an airport. If intended to be flown above 150' then you have to give the FAA 24 hours notice, and you also need streamers on the line every 50' (or less).

300' above your backyard is definitely airspace, it has a specific classification and it has specific (and different) rules depending on whether the pilot can or can't see where the aircraft is going. Your flying platform meets the definition of an aircraft, and flying or operating aircraft is the definition of aviation. The person being slow to understand these things isn't me.