There's another angle to this: people are way too sensitive. If they can't take honest negative feedback we'll end up with the current trend of everyone faking being nice to everyone else.
I'm happy the Internet lets us to be so honest and have a break from real life where no real argument takes place anymore because it has become bad social behavior.
You can enable drag-and-drop in the Window Buttons panel Item. As for Indicator, yeah, it's a bit of a mystery. But I don't think much is missing there.
Other examples of missing stuff:
- Complex shortcuts: you can't set keyA and also keyA+keyB as shortcuts work on keyPress rather than keyRelease. So no SuperKey and also SuperKey+L/D/R and such.
- Easy window resize: the dragging thing is exactly 1 pixel wide. Gotta use Alt+Right-click to resize.
But you get used to XFCE's tiny quirks, it really gets like heaven after some work.
Hardened kernel (e.g Coppherhead OS), custom open-source ROM to disable all telemetry and audit the code (among others), FOSS APK provider (f-droid), disabling online tracking (AdAway, AFWall), full filesystem access. iPhone hardly has any of this.
Note that this is true of any bootloader-unlocked Android phone, not just security-focused ones.
Please bear with me, I'm not OS-savvy, are many of these features designed to protect against untrusted processes? If both phones have no additional apps installed, what would be the most likely way for the data within to be compromised? Is it fair of me to believe it's fair to distinguish telemetry and security as separate concerns?
In general HN has a strong bias toward Apple over Android RE: security. Many of the points are entirely valid, but it's also true that some important advantages on the Android side (such as those listed above) as often understated or overlooked here.
For me, a closed-source OS is a dealbreaker on its own, regardless of any other major HW or SW advantages.
My Android phone (and most recent Android phones I know) completely locks USB data, including from devices that had previously been granted access. You have to unlock, touch a notification and enable some file transfer option instead of "charging only". No 7 days limit, the access is denied immediately once it disconnects.
I doubt they would have received $80k+, maybe half, even in that area. And that's in addition to what they had already been paid. So that sounds about right for back wages.
Still, there's no deterrent here, you're correct. If they do again there may be real fines however.
Imagine we could choose between living miserably and never progress, or let one person die one hour earlier than they normally would and the rest would live immortally and thrive in luxury forever. I think most people would pick the latter.
Now, we're in a situation similar to this, although much much less extreme. But the point is, trade-offs exist. And this is one of them.
The current economic situation is a lot closer to "what if one person could live immortally in luxury, at the cost of everyone else dying an hour earlier than they normally would".
Problem is, most companies that need a lot of power only care about one thing - peak performance. And they tune it carefully in order to not overspend while guaranteeing minimal downtime. This means that they'll have to pretty much scale their infrastructure up by exactly 30%. That's a LOT for these big clients.
Honestly, I'd just make sure the server firewalls are super tight and not take in the future patches. At least for now.
Very very few highly tuned "peak performance" workloads are dominated by syscall overhead like the test that produced that 30% number was. It's best to hold off on the hyperbole.
I have a power dependent workload that scales horizontally and is currently already dominated by the cost of system calls. This will effectively, directly cause me to buy 30% more compute on a huge infrastructure. (2,000~physical machines. Quite beefy dual socket machines with a lot of memory)
I know I’m not alone.
Then again. Think of microservices, Kubernetes for instance; Network requests are system calls.
If your workload has no code that's untrusted, you can safely skip this patch or disable it on boot. If not, at 2000+ physical machines, it may be worth to move some of that into kernel modules that would collapse a couple syscalls into a single higher level one.
Only if you want to do something that would otherwise be a violation of copyright - e.g. distribute the module to other people (assuming it's sufficiently entangled with linux to be a derivative work therof). The GPL only licenses you to do things that you otherwise couldn't do, it doesn't restrict you from doing things that were never a violation of copyright (e.g. privately modifying your own things).
AMD server CPUs currently outperform Intel on some multi-threaded benchmarks. This usually isn't a problem for people buying for peak-performance because you can always buy more CPUs to increase parallel programming speeds, but it's harder to make single threads faster.
It's possible that the patches applied to fix this bug will cause some single-threaded benchmarks to change from Intel being the fastest to AMD being the fastest.
So for what it is worth my company has all Intel kit. We run servers that run docker. In each docker container we do build / test for our product. That is all we use them for. 1RU with 2 blades, each blade is dual socket, 72 total cores, 512GB RAM. We will not apply this patch as none of this is public facing and we do not want the hit to build / test throughput. The one big thing that this has done is we were looking at AMD for new servers and that has now become a higher priority on the to do list. Given our environment we care about the number of containers we can run, period.
It is overwhelmingly likely that we’ll buy more intel. Power/Watt has always been superior and AMD has to prove itself over time before we’d buy it.
Not trying to kill expectations. This decision isn’t mine alone. You know the old saying “nobody got fired for buying Cisco” that applies to Intel too.
No, but lots of workloads are built with latency in mind. For APIs that talk to each other in long serial chains, don't be surprised if request responses take significantly longer in many, many workflows.
I wouldn’t isolate your concern to firewalls and bad actors that break in over SSH. If they manage to find a vulnerability in your app that allows remote code execution this could help them make that problem much worse. Also VM/container escapes are a big problem if you use a cloud provider.
If they really care about peak performance, I don't believe the PTI patch will affect them. If you can change your system in a way that the power-hungry part does not work on untrusted data, you can not with "nopti" and ignore it. Systems which both need lots of maxed-out CPUs and traffic directly from wild internet are pretty rare. They're unlikely to run on a virtualised systems either.
The CPUs in cloud environments are not maxed out in general. There will be some area like batch processing and compute-specific VMs. For other cases, there's quite a bit of overcommitting of resources. And that's before you start doing scheduling that mixed workloads on a physical host for better utilisation.
Source: worked on a public cloud environment.
I agree with you on most VMs. But once you schedule mixed workloads, you want each host to be balanced so that all of its capacity is utilized evenly. Which means that if CPU use increases across the fleet, you will want new hardware with more CPU.
A negative result is also considered knowledge: rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis is usually valuable. Tom Scott just did a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOJnOCdBr4s
So a bioweapon might not satisfy this criteria. Besides it probably violates other laws, and is thus still illegal.
Absolutely. The whole ordeal reminds me awfully of Ajit Pai's tone as he kills net neutrality, sounding as if everything was fine until net neutrality came along.
Although different, this too brushes off this one instance as a mistake, and entirely disregards the rest of the article, not even trying to address or explain the rest of Mozilla's recent borderline malicious behavior.
A serious fork is long overdue, if only it didn't take a corporation as big as Mozilla to undo their bad deeds.
I'm just one DevRel engineer on a layover; I'm not the right person to answer those broader questions. Not trying to be dismissive, just trying to engage in the areas where I'm most able.
Who is "them"? And who will pay the enormous lawsuit bills for the thousands of cases? And are there enough lawyers in the world to fight every obvious patent? Enlighten us.
I'm happy the Internet lets us to be so honest and have a break from real life where no real argument takes place anymore because it has become bad social behavior.