Wait: user data inside the container?
That's terrible practice, you never keep user data inside a container. The whole point of containers, aside from being isolated and reproducible, is that you can at any time destroy them and create a new one.
Data should have been on external mounts (e.g.: volumes), and the entire container's FS read-only.
This allows having stateless containers in a way (they have in-memory state, but everything else is ephemeral).
Quite right. But it's not like Skype doesn't snoop either.
Works fine on Firefox on ArchLinux. No plugins installed, btw.
By this time (w/ MS deliberately contributing to Mono no less) estoppel should quash any patent claims.
it's a good thing proving that in court is inexpensive and that they have a moral integrity to not use their vast army of lawyers to just bleed you until you cannot afford to defend yourself.
oh wait.
By this time (w/ MS deliberately contributing to Mono no less) estoppel should quash any patent claims.
it's a good thing proving that in court is inexpensive and that they have a moral integrity to not use their vast army of lawyers to just bleed you until you cannot afford to defend yourself.
oh wait.
If it came down to this, the PR hit on MSFT would be huge. They may win the trail, but they'll lose in image more than they can afford. Nobody would trust them again if they realize MS sues projects it actually collaborated with.
I'm amazed at why AT&T doesn't pro-actively detect this.
Fun fact: In Argentina, by law, if the bill reaches twice what you usually pay, the ISP is forced to notify you before allowing further charges. So in this case, at $102, they should have called the person and notified of the event before it escalated further.
If the parents actually reach an agreement, I assumed that the mother could just gift back an equivalent sum to the father anyway (effectively nulling the support cost for the father, but complying with court orders).
Yeah, they're using all that data you gave them.
If you really don't want other to have your information, then don't give it to facebook.
You'll generally just have to rebuild your app.
If you picked some technology which is windows-specific to design it, then it's probably your fault that Linux won't run it, not the kernel's.
Oh, and we've got wine, in any case, which seems to run a great many things just fine.
It's a real shame all of this variety is only for the US.
Living in Argentina, I've no way of getting HBO other than old cable TV. It's prohibit expensive, and you actually have to pay an additional bonus for HDTV, and a second bonus for HBO.
I wonder why their online subscription is not available worldwide (and even better: at locally adjusted pricing).
So you ADMIT that Linux can't even KEEP ITS OWN DRIVERS FUNCTIONING for a lousy 5 years, just HALF the life cycle of Windows?
No, I never admited anything alike (I've no idea how you misinterpreted my response). I've also seen drivers that have been in kernel well over a decade. Generally, as long as someone is interested, there's no reason to remove drivers from the kernel.
.local is used my mdns (eg: avahi, bonjour), so you shouldn't use it with a static, classic dns if you want to avoid colission.
Why not just use a real TLD for internal stuff as well and stop complicating things?
Then riddle me this...why does NOBODY, and I do mean nobody, not in FOSS nor in proprietary, support Torvalds driver model? After all if it was good there is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from adopting it, right? And what about BSD, why does it not follow the great Torvalds driver model?
"nobody" migth have been an exageration. Intel does. As do plenty of others (logitech, realtek come to mind, but there's a lot more). But I think naming Intel should prove that it's not just just one man.
Also, BSDs follows an extremely similar model: In the kernel tree. Most OpenBSD don't support binary blobs either, I've no idea about the rest.
The reason why is obvious, its because its shit that just won't scale. Hell basic math will show you that "let the kernel devs handle it" utterly collapses when the number of drivers reaches 5 figures because there simply is not enough kernel devs to keep up with all the hardware that is already out, much less the hundreds of new devices released this and every other quarter. It really VERY simple, in 1993, when the entire OS could fit on a single floppy? Then sure letting the kernel devs handle it made sense, they had MAYBE 30 drivers all told to deal with, now how many is there? 100,000? 200,000? Even if you pumped up the devs on coke and locked them in a room with NOTHING to but but deal with drivers they would have MAYBE 5 minutes every 3 years for each driver!
The devs just check that everything is the tree is ok, The drivers themselves are written by the hardware developers. When I had an issue with a Logitech mouse on PowerPC, it was a Logitech dev that submitted that patch to the linux kernel. That model does scale.
But if you truly believe what you are saying? Then put your money where your mouth is and take the Hairyfeet challenge which just FYI only requires Linux to run HALF, I repeat HALF as long as a Windows lifecycle. Surely your OS can do half of what Windows can, right? I look forward to seeing your video posted here and the complete vid on Dropbox. of course we'll never see it because if you actually attempt to take the challenge you'll see what I saw countless times and that is Torvalds.driver.model.doesn't.work. and it all comes down to his driver model being made of fail.
The hairyfeet challenge is stupid. Is someone is stupid enough to invest money on something without knowing what it is or any previous research to see if it fits their purpose, they deserve what they get. Even if you know nothing about PCs, you can ask someone that does.
The problem is not related to the driver model at all (which is actually far better than the MSFT one), but to the fact that microsoft has a huge amount of money, has held a strong monopoly over a very long time, and there's a lot of money motivating manufacturers to just write windows drivers. It's money, there's nothing technical about that.
> It's hard to see how one could simplify Linux networking. It requires one ip addr command to set an IP address and one ip route command to set a default route. And on IPv6 even those are unnecessary, it's automatic.
And a dns, too. And the wireless network name. And the wireless network username+password.
And then, I have to do it all again in two minutes when you walk out of range. And then again when you get home. And then again at a cafe.
NM might not be the nicest of things, but it sure beats the hell out of running several commands every time I relocate myself/my laptop.
On Linux? To connect to WPA2 networks (including WPA2+802.1X). That's an everyday scenario for a pretty much every laptop user.
Sure, you can also do it via cli (with more tools than just those you mentioned), but, do you remember all the steps? Can you teach them to your mum? Can you automate it?
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
