Managed async bulk transfers as-a-service seems relevant to anyone writing lots of data doing multisite including DR. You can easily have this problem and not have yet hit any other scale problems that are addressed by the alluded-to tools people love to hate (k8s, tf, containers etc).
What is being managed here with Effingo is the relatively tiny links between sites, not the bandwidth on the fat local links. Bandwidth needs to be managed and prioritized across all the various copies that are happening across different services apps and teams simultaneously across the company, and across the systems themselves as aggregate for the links. Managing it gives you control on cost but also ensures optimal use within the constraints imposed and consistent and reliable handling of the copy use case.
> [1] e.g. because stock sales/purchases are still inexplicably not instantaneous it's conceivable something terrible could happen in the multiday period between purchasing your shares at a discount, and being able to sell them.
I recall participating in an ESPP where each time it vested (each 6 months) ended up being in a trading black out window, where we had to wait until Earnings Release + 3 days before being able to dump the stock. Lost that 15% gain just about every time.
That's relatively rare in tech, but some companies are very touchy about their trading windows. Usually smaller companies, lower floats, lawyers trying to manage insider trading risks, etc..
For larger companies, it's almost always -- ESPP purchase happens, you can sell it immediately.
This is mixing up cmd.exe which is the dos-like (but not dos) scripting interpreter, and conhost.exe which is the actual old terminal emulator/console that the kernel would spin up whenever you ran cmd.exe.
I forget where I first heard this, but whenever someone uses the word "folks", you can often replace that word with the word "idiots" and get the actual underlying meaning of the speaker.
Now not all speakers using it mean it that way, but it's a lazy word to use to group people, and the othering of people it implies seems to equally apply. The condescending tone really shines through.
If you intend on continuing to use this word to address people, know that at least some of us are making this conversion in our heads at all times.
That’s pretty cynical, and maybe not the smartest way to communicate. A similar argument can be made for “people”, and it already was made in this thread before I commented. A speaker can’t be expected to walk on egg shells because there are cynics in the audience who refuse to accept neutral and common usage of words. If someone chooses to interpret a word differently than it’s definition and normal usage, it reflects on them and not the speaker.
> Calling people “folks” all the time is lazy and insulting.
No it’s not. “Folks” means “people”, it has for more than a thousand years, and it’s used most often with the exact same intent. You’re making negative and incorrect assumptions.
If you say so, though I can’t say I’m super convinced by your opinion; it doesn’t seem like you’ve made a reasonable case or brought any evidence. To be fair, it is legitimately hard to argue with the dictionary and all of history, but I wish you good luck communicating with others! BTW, did you intend for that to be a self-own?
Yeah, imagine losing your gmail account due to some automated system malfunctioning and simultaneously losing access to the transportation system you depend on.
If you consider the consumption of energy required to make an EV versus a die cast combustion engine, you'll see the energy consumption got front loaded.
Oil is co2 'plants' from a timespan of over houndred thousend years which we burned in 50 or 100 years.
The EV components are primarily reusable.
A gas / fuel car will ALWAYS consume oil. If yo want to switch to greener energye transport systems like plant oil, you can do that, its just not very efficient in comparision to an EV car.
And if you really really ment co2 as 'plants will consume it' no they are not able to consume that excess co2. Otherwise this co2 graph wouldn't look how it looks now: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Cyclic logic that says you're wrong for wanting a stable kernel interface, because the kernel keeps changing so the solution is to just get your code merged into mainline. As a tautology, it's true, but it's also a cover for "because we don't want to".
See Windows or android GKI for existence proof that it can be done if so motivated.
From what I understood, I think the big difference here is the human factor: Windows and Android are maintained by employees, who have no choice but to work on things even if they don't like doing it. Linux on the other hand is a collective effort of people doing what they want to do on their free time.
They come from employees of various companies, not employees of some company that owns Linux itself. All those various companies have different goals, and are only contributing because doing so is in their economic interest. Having a stable ABI would require a lot more work, and these companies have zero incentive to invest in this effort: it doesn't help their profitability, it just makes things easier for others outside their companies. Arguably, it also makes the kernel code a lot more complicated and bug-prone.
It makes sense for MS, for example, to want a stable ABI to make things easier for 3rd-party devs so they'll target that platform, and for MS to shoulder the effort of maintaining that ABI cumbersomeness. It doesn't really makes sense for Linux. You could argue that this hampers adoption of Linux as an alternative to Windows on desktop machines, but even if that's true, no one involved really has an economic incentive to change this. In the places where Linux is dominant (Android + servers + embedded), a stable ABI isn't really helpful or needed.
I think about this meme every time I get distracted adding more customization to my vimrc. "How do I quit vim?" I ask myself as I dig deeper down the rabbit hole.
What is being managed here with Effingo is the relatively tiny links between sites, not the bandwidth on the fat local links. Bandwidth needs to be managed and prioritized across all the various copies that are happening across different services apps and teams simultaneously across the company, and across the systems themselves as aggregate for the links. Managing it gives you control on cost but also ensures optimal use within the constraints imposed and consistent and reliable handling of the copy use case.