The Docker Engine is much thicker than a hypervisor essentially containing the full suite of services of the guest OS.
Docker is legit and important. There are a 1/2 dozen of these containerized OSes. Docker is the most flexible (it runs on a wide range of Linuxes while most of them are specific to a particular cloud vendor). It is also the most comprehensive though SoftLayer's and Azure's might pass it in that regard. A Docker container is thicker than a VM, thinner than a full Linux distribution running on a VM. It is more accurate to consider Docker an alternative to VMs and Linux distributions running in each VM.
The Docker platform doesn't actually interface with hardware it relies on Linux to do that, the same way that Google Play makes use of Android to address the actual physical hardware. I think it is accurate to say that Docker is a flavor of Linux.
run a business without paying the traditional costs in the field and socialize your costs. in this case he wants every internet customer to pay for his bandwidth whether they use netflix or not.
ISPs chose their flat-rate business model; Netflix didn't force it on them. If that business model no longer works, ISPs should switch to a different one.
Nah, Netflix used to use other CDNs. But then they got big enough that it was cheaper to build their own.
That's orthogonal to the issue that (in most people's opinion) no CDN should have to pay broadband ISPs.
No. Reread what I wrote. I'm talking desktops users.
As a human being, yes, I agree he should do.
But in terms of being "CEO material", my concern is exclusively limited to the idiotic way he handled himself when it become public knowledge he'd funded a specific organization that was running an anti-gay smear campaign.
Ultimately if we're going to limit who gets to run companies purely by whether they're nice people or not, we're going to be stuck with a very short list.
At the same time, accusing anyone with concerns about his donation of running a smear campaign and being unreasonable shows a lack of an ability to deal with people, to deal with conflicting viewpoints. Indeed, Eich's behavior, to be brutally frank, suggests he'd have acted as a thuggish CEO, intolerant of those around him who have the temerity to criticize his actions, and unwilling to engage with them. That isn't just disqualification for a CEO position at a conventional private company, but anethema for one so prominent in Open Source, a movement that is built around cooperation and mutual respect.
Are you responding to my comment or did you hit the wrong Reply button?
Not seeing anything about slavery there, nor anything vague or any words being used with the wrong definitions.
Can you come up with some actual examples of individual men being the target of violent threats on Twitter etc because he posts a mildly controversial opinion? (And I think we can agree that suggesting a famous woman be on a dollar bill, or that tampons be subsidized, counts as mildly controversial.)
FWIW incidentally I don't recall any copyright campaigns that aluded to rape, nor any that were aimed exclusively at male offenderes.
I challenged you to prove me wrong, and it appears you've failed on that score. Sorry, but I'm not interested in discussing an issue with a troll who is arguing in bad faith.
I'm pretty sure everyone else can see the difference between firing someone for their political views, and opposing someone being put in a senior leadership position because they handle a controversy badly.
So how, exactly, are you not simply opposed to his politics when you say his only recourse was to change his politics?
When you stop beating your wife, I'll let you know the answer to that one
I think I was "concerned" and I didn't feel "insulted",
Well obviously, because you didn't actually hear what he had to say when he accused you of "are not providing a reasoned argument (and) labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society."
I would call that an insult. I'm assuming, of course, you really are saying in good faith you were concerned at the time and expressed that concern. I'm also assuming, of course, that you were expressing concern and not actually being unreasonable
If you can't work with or for people who hold political or religious beliefs you disagree with, you have a problem with professionalism.
Quite. Which brings us to why Eich was a bad fit to be a leader of an organization of people whose dissenting opinions he couldn't respect.
Whenever patent trolls get talked about, it always comes down to how much impact this is having on small businesses and entrepreneurs.
I think the patent trolls naturally tell us that this is "no big deal".
However, I can't shake the feeling that utterly abysmal rate of new small businesses being started these days is directly related to these fucking evil trolls.
I think any estimation of how much economic activity is being stifled by these trolls is quite possibly orders of magnitude off.
No, not really. Men don't generally get hundreds of these level of threats on Twitter et al when they make mildly (or even full on) controversial statements. Propose putting Einstein on a dollar bill, or that men's razors should be free or subsidized, and see if you get anything remotely close to what happens if you're female and suggest or mention female dollar bill characters or subsidized tampons.
No, because that doesn't make any sense given the problem with Eich was not his donation but the way he handled the revelations, insulting anyone that expressed a concern that Eich might not be a potentially inclusive leader.
And FWIW, though it's not relevent, the organization that Eich donated to was homophobic. You might similarly argue that being against interracial marriage is not racist, but whether you do or not, if a specific organization is running ads making claims about blacks and how dangerous they are, if you choose to express your opposition to interracial marriage by donating to that organization, you are donating to a racist organization.
But like I've said three times now today alone, whether Eich is anti-gay, pro-gay, whatever, doesn't matter. What matters is that rather than addressing concerns that he might be non-inclusive, he insulted those who were concerned. That's fine if you want to be churning out code from your basement. It's not OK if you want to lead people.
It wasn't because "he didn't like gays". It was because he "happened to be anti-gay marriage" and donated to a campaign which you disagree with so therefore he has bad judgement and wasn't fit to lead.
No, that's not what I said at all.
I said that Eich made certain bad decisions concerning how he handled a controversial act. The controversial act itself doesn't matter. What matters is that when the issue was raised, instead of saying "I can understand your concern, this is why you shouldn't be concerned", he insulted everyone who'd expressed concern.
Of course, if you're like the 99% of people who responded to me during the controversy, you're going to pretend I didn't write this and respond as if I'm saying Eich should be fired because he doesn't want teh buttsex. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
I'm sure all this overbearing political correctness that tortures you so will start to disappear once it stops being the case that every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response.
But good for you, standing up for the right to be annoyed that uppity women keep complaining about all the rape threats they keep getting.