It wouldn't bee 389 DS and sssd. It would be FreeIPA/RedHat IdM and sssd. Furthermore it is not "instead of samba". Samba is for Windows clients. FreeIPA is a sort of Active Directory for Linux. It specifically supports things like centrally defining sudo rules. I recall that RedHat was trying to get Samba to have a pluggable Kerberos backend so it would work WITH FreeIPA/RH IdM. I haven't looked at it in awhile, but maybe that work has been completed by now.

Another reason I think they are dumping Docker is that RedHat is focused on Kubernetes/OpenShift. K8S does not require Docker anymore. So why use it?

The bundles were there to reduce costs. This is mainly for basic channels (the one with ads). They'd bundle some niche channels with more popular channels so that they'd have more advertising space. The broader channels subsidized the more niche channels. The nice thing about Internet delivery is that niche channels are paid for directly, but then you run into the possibility that you're paying for a small amount to each niche content provider you like (say via Patreon).

End the end the whole thing will be a wash. We'll end up with a bit more convenience in delivery for a little less like this Tweet points out:
https://twitter.com/KrysMcFly/...

YouTube seems to not want those little channels anymore. They're demonetizing a ton of channels for almost any reason even if the reason is not real. YouTube wants to become Hulu, HBO, etc. They want "legit" channels that make money from ads. The most junk they can get rid of the better for them. Yeah, they started with "YOU" tube, but that was a loss leader, they need it to make money now.

Is this a new idea? Cable providers didn't like people hacking their receivers either (e.g. sat's "one for all" hack). Those hacks were much harder to know how widespread they were.

Since the beginning of broadcast, stations wanted to keep you on their channel. The old "Z-channel" had premium content, but people had to pay for it. Cable happened, HBO happened, the mid-tier ad-supported channels happened, channel bundles happened. They wanted your eyeballs. The only thing that has changed is the system of delivery.

Wasn't there a technology that brought all the content produced by various companies (Disney, Sony, HBO, ABC, etc) and put them on one convenient box that was connected to a TV? It used more efficient broadcast technology (cable and satellites) to distribute the content to millions of TV's at the same time. Boxes even gained the ability to timeshift the broadcast shows. /s

I think what we're learning here is that the cost of content and distribution is the cost. The only thing cord cutting and piracy did was increase the cost of cable and satellite by reducing the amount of customers. So the content companies thought packaging up the content and putting it on the Internet would bring back the eyeballs like the music industry did with mp3's. It worked, but as soon as Netflix proved they could make money on their own content, things fractured again beyond the initial companies (Netflix and Hulu).

It is a bit more than what you stated. If the people have an expectation for the government to protect everyone, then the government will do more and more to do that. More police, until there is something called a police state to stop crime. This is not how the US was founded. It is a natural right to protect oneself that the government can't infringe on. One of the tools for protection is a firearm. The government just recognizes that right, it doesn't grant it.


This is why concealed carry is important. The police can't be everywhere.

Maybe you meant OpenShift (not OpenStack). But yeah, OpenShift does depends on Kubernetes. I suspect more and more upper level tooling "solutions" will depend on Kubernetes and Kubernetes itself will sort of fade. It will be assumed. Somewhat like what has happened with the Linux kernel.

Except that RedHat pays a LOT of important developers for the upstream work. Just look at who contributes to some of the projects we take for granted each day. You'll see RedHat employees in quite a few of them. RedHat bought Cygnus Solutions years ago. Cygnus was an important contributer to the gcc toolchain. RedHat continues that tradition. Not to mention the hip projects like Kubernetes (see https://www.stackalytics.com/ ).

I don't mind handing over money to RedHat, because they contribute so much to opensource software.

How about CentOS/RedHat base.... but running containers. You get the best of both worlds.

What does peering have to do with NN? A peering connection treats all packets the same which is what NN specifies.

Costs for transit at a "major internet exchanges" are very cheap, but you have to GET to that exchange first and that can be very expensive (depending on where you start out). Last mile with good converge to customers is expensive. Networks do get to charge for access to that network. Simple supply and demand.

No, they are not double charging. There are two ways to get a packet to a network. One way is to use transit. The customer pays for some amount of max bandwidth and the packet can go to any point on the Internet. The other service is peering. The customer pays for packets to be delivered to a single destination network (not THROUGH it). This cost is lower than transit. Since these are entirely different services, they are NOT double charging.

One way, both sides pay transit. The other way one pays transit and the other pays peering (much cheaper than transit).

Yeah, your ISP can give you a 20Mb/s link, but that doesn't mean that you get a perfect 20mb/s link to every hop along to way to every point on the Internet. You are at the mercy of many peering connections. This is one of the reasons BitTorrent was invented.

Well, yeah, that's my point. The traffic could be treated exactly the same, but the peering might be constrained. This is not a violation of NN.

Weren't wireless companies allowed to exempt some services from NN? From what I have read about T-Mobile's technique is that because they peer with Netflix, etc, they limit the per customer rate over that peering connection. This is shaping, but it provides better overall performance on their network. The customers were able to get the videos they wanted, but the video was limited in resolution (due to lower bandwidth for the stream). The easy way around this is to download the video over WiFi at the higher quality. This is a win-win. Let strain on the cell networks and better quality for the people who care about that.

Since the title of the article makes it clear they are talking about wireless carriers, then they are allowed to do this. This was even allowed under the old NN rules for special exemptions for wireless carriers.

There is a difference between throttling and overloaded peering connections. Does this testing make this distinction? A choke point along the path is not throttling.

Oh, yeah, guns are only part of it. Soooo very many violations of the contract. The federal government has way overstepped. And then there are the courts. For some reason people think judges should be kings.

... it only acknowledges them. This is an important distinction in the US. So the government doesn't grant us rights to make weapons for self-protection, we have that right already. The government doesn't give us the right to speech, we have it already. The Bill of Rights is there to make sure the government doesn't trample on those rights.