I would definitely prefer this. I've never wanted to see the "cache" stores for all (XDG-compliant) apps, but often want to see everything for a single app.
It’s less about wanting to see all the caches, and more about excluding all the caches, e.g. from backups. Likewise, there is one directory for machine-independent configuration which you might share, and another for machine-specific state (such as window positions).
Is the spec perfect? No, of course not. But is it thoughtful, and does it address genuine needs? Yes, certainly.
b) consistently 'reset' cached data for kiosk style logins
c) make config read-only, or reset to a known good state
d) Roaming profiles where the cache is excluded from sync across machines
Most computers + home directories are 'personal' where this largly doesn't matter, but there are often sound operational reasons for this seperation in cases where you are responsible for a fleet of computers. I too perfer the 'everything related to this app in one dir' approach. Crazy idea: for apps adhering to XDG, you could point all these vars at a directory under a FUSE-style mount, which then remaps the storage any way you'd like. :)
ProxyJump was added in OpenSSH 7.3 so systems from a few years ago might not support it. It does the same thing as ProxyCommand with -W %h:%p but you can’t set custom options for the jump connection with ProxyJump.
As someone spending a large amount of their week doing interviews these days, I really empathize with the spirit of this article. I've expressed an annoyance very similar to this one many times before - it's astounding how many nominally senior programmers are not adept at manipulating text.
If you've been writing a lot of software, I would expect you to be good at actually putting the characters into a file and moving them around therein. I would be very suspicious of someone who claimed to be a master carpenter but couldn't drive a nail cleanly. Muscle memory is a real thing, and the mechanics of a task matter. What is the point of all our fetishization of editors and keyboards and such if not to smooth the transition between brain and paper?
This isn't even always a matter of candidates operating in an unfamiliar environment. Even on their own personal computers, in the editor they presumably use for work, I see a lot of flailing.
This sounds like you're suffering from interview burn out to me. If you have a condescending voice towards interviewees outside interviews then it is usually a manifestation of how you perceive them in the interviews.
Do yourself and the candidates a favor and step back from it to allow yourself to lose such prejudices.
First, nobody who's lived in Chicago for more than about thirty minutes can possibly believe that this will end up being free to the city. At some point, somehow, we're going to pay.
Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare! This is an incredibly marginal improvement, and only benefiting a group that already has plenty of options. The existing train systems are focused entirely on an outdated model of exclusively bringing people to and from downtown. And huge swathes of the city don't even get that.
The blue line is slow, crowded, loud, frequently requires delay-inducing maintenance, and is often very dirty and smelly. The article says “40 minutes,” but that’s the absolute best you could hope for. You have to plan at least 1:15 minutes for the blue line from the loop if you want to be confident you won’t be late.
A 20 minute direct trip on a modern train would radically improve every aspect of getting between the airport and the city, and would be a welcome support as the city’s ancient trains continue to deteriorate.
> The blue line is slow, crowded, loud, frequently requires delay-inducing maintenance, and is often very dirty and smelly.
The times I've traveled to Chicago, I don't mind taking the train. Most of these things either don't bother me or are roughly comparable to most other mass transit systems of the same size and distance.
But holy cow the sound. Loud is an understatement - it is likely the loudest train I've ever ridden. Once you hit those tunnels the wheel squealing is positively ear splitting, to the point I've started bringing earplugs with me when I know I'm going to be riding that line into town. I can't imagine the kind of hearing damage being done to people who ride that line frequently or people who work on it.
It would be nice if they could find a way to reduce the volume.
I don't really see the point of an express train to the airport. Who's in a rush to get to the airport where you already have to get there very early anyway and do a lot of waiting?
In some parts of the world, a short flight is supposedly just as convenient as hopping on the bus or train. Hop over to the next city, the next state.
At least where I live, a two hour flight becomes a six to seven hour ordeal, with ninety minutes for security etc, ninety for travel to and from each airport, ultimately turning what is really not that long a flight into a full day of traveling.
I understand the dream of getting to & from the airport in a speedy timeframe.
New trains are difficult because of right-of-way - everything's built up by now, no room on the surface. Boring a tunnel can be a way out. Why all the resistance? If this one works out, Chicago may get their 'huge swathes' on a workable underground transit system.
I'm sure there are civil engineering issues I haven't thought of, but it seems like there would be a lot less tunnel to bore if they take the existing line that already goes from downtown to O'Hare and just convert it from being partially underground to being completely underground.
> Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare!
People who don't like or use transit love to talk about trains to the airport. It reveals a lot about how they view transit. To wit: it's a novelty, for special situations, for when you couldn't otherwise use your car to get where you're going.
It's not real transportation, in other words. It's a shuttle for the exceptions in your life.
You’re not the only one to note this phenomenon. Airports in general aren’t the biggest generators of trips.
I’ve watched the process unfold in Seattle; the light rail opened first with service connecting the airport to downtown. During this period actual ridership was fairly small. Then they opened the second phase which connects downtown through a major neighborhood to University of Washington. Over night, ridership jumped massively.
I’m not opposed to airport rail per se, but there are generally much, much better places to build rail to and from.
Caveats about Seattle’s airport link: Building to the airport first did in some sense prioritize service to poorer neighborhoods in the Rainier Valley. That’s good-ish, but was made less good by making it a surface train, and cutting local bus service which often better served the local needs of those communities.
But that jump in ridership is also lots of people heading to/from the airport. I live in Ballard and twice in the past year I have ridden cross town to the UW station and then rode the light rail to the airport. Lots cheaper than an Uber. I noticed that a lot of people also had the same idea, quite a few people ride the train to the airport from the north.
Certainly connecting light rail to other destinations has also yielded improvements to airport ridership. But that doesn't change that downtown to airport, by itself, was a relative ghost town. We already had a major destination (downtown) connecting to the airport. That tells me that thing on the other end (the airport) just wasn't a very major destination.
Bellevue, West Seattle, and Ballard links can't happen soon enough. I suspect each of those will also generate far more ridership than the downtown-to-airport link as well.
Why would anyone expect it to be free? Of course they'll charge fares. It important to remember that CTA fares don't cover the full cost of services, it also gets money from taxpayers. And building a new line would most likely involve an appropriation or maybe issuing bonds that get paid back over decades. For this, the city won't have to put out any money of its own, nor take any risk.
I am curious how they'll deal with the new line siphoning off revenue from the existing service. I assume that they'll negotiate this (maybe a share of revenue?), what the price will be, routing, etc.
>Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare!
I wouldn't say that it's perfectly fine. The Blue Line to O'Hare has become notorious for it's overcrowding. I think the goal is to reduce some of that congestion to O'Hare and get people to stay at hotels in the city. I'm not convinced that it's worth it though.
Crowding exists on the blue line because there's not enough power to run more cars to support the increase in rush-hour ridership in the neighborhoods of Logan Square, Bucktown, Wicker Park and Nobel Square. Outside of rush hour, it's not that bad. If the Blue Line could run 5mph faster, and run an extra car or two, that'd make a huge dent in that congestion.
Yes, and there is a project to increase power in progress. With the upcoming O'Hare expansion and increased TOD development along the Blue Line this is could very well help mitigate future overcrowding at minimal cost to the city.
I'd argue that for the red line as well. Especially for rush hour. Anecdotal but I've always gotten a seat while traveling to O'Hare (Mon & Thurs 8am-ish).
I dont think he can stay around without exploiting crony capitalism, his businesses have failed.
EDIT: Was forced out of paypal, spaceX is reliant on taxes, Tesla isnt profitable, SolarCity wasnt profitable and was bought by tesla(which outrages anyone who knows anything about corruption and stock ownership) and Boring is reliant on taxes.
How is that an argument? There's plenty of companies that service only governments, and as such are entirely reliant on taxes. Sounds like a perfectly real source of profit.
> Boring is reliant on taxes.
TBC is self-funded and has been all this time. This is literally the first commercial thing TBC is building, and even this they're financing themselves. So this is simply untrue.
> Tesla isnt profitable
I'll give you this. I'm curious if he'll be able to make it profitable like he's promising now.
Again. That is simply false. The waste majority of their flights are not for the government and they do not depend on the government contracts to keep them going.
Also they are offering their services to NASA cheaper then all competition (domestic and global) by as much as 50%. NASA itself admitted that they can not do it cheaper then commercial partners.
> we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare
I wouldn't call that perfect. It takes at least an hour from the loop to O'Hare on a good day.
In comparison, the Stockholm Arlanda airport is 5 miles further from Stockholm Central than O'Hare is to the Loop, and it takes the Arlanda Express high speed train 20 minutes to get there.
The Shanghai Pudong maglev is a couple miles longer than the train to O'Hare, and it takes just over 8 minutes. Well, except during rush hour, when it takes 7.5 minutes!
That is fantastic. I am always amazed by the devotion many East Asian countries have placed in high-speed public transport, and it saddens me that the "developed" western countries are being left behind very quickly both in speed and quality of public transport, especially rail (and its variations).
The key is putting tax money where your mouth is, prioritizing projects with high impact over projects that cater to the voter base that you need to get reelected, and using eminent domain to get the best route against the interest of some individual people.
It's a two-way street. People like to look at it and be amazed, while most wouldn't be prepared to follow through on it given the drawbacks and their own principles of how governments should work.
A little OT but what is it called when a rail system is setup purely to ferry people to and from the heart of the city?
Philadelphia is the same way. New York on the other hand is more of a spaghetti mess. I wonder if that interconnection does things for the city too, like encourage growth in more areas.
> New York on the other hand is more of a spaghetti mess.
Not really. Look at the map again. Everything flows through Manhattan. The entire system is setup to take you to Manhattan. If you want to go from the Bronx to Queens or Brooklyn, you go through Manhattan.
There's really only one line for which this isn't true: the G from Queens to Brooklyn.
Lines like the M [0] that could fairly easily have been designed as a full circle, are actually U-shaped, because it's really about funneling people in and out of Manhattan.
London is a bit like this as well, most of the trains that come in from Outer London are commuter trains that go to a ring of termini around the centre, then you have to change onto the Underground.
They're trying to tackle it at the moment by setting up new lines that go through the centre, but start and end far out regionally, so to go north to south you don't have to interchange from one terminus to another. Thameslink and Crossrail are both part of this concept. The model comes from Paris, which has the RER network, separate from the subway.
> Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare!
No way man. I used to commute from cumberland stop to downtown, I would be physically exhausted by the time I got to my stop 1 hr later. 1 hr on CTA is very different from 1 hr on metra, the seats are so cramped, you cannot open your laptop, constant pee smell, so many stop-starts take a toll on your body. Current CTA cars don't allow for people travelling to ohare with even one suitcase, there is no place to put your suitcase.
If the commute was 12 minutes, I can imagine so many people with families will move out of the city to enjoy more space out northwest. I would definitely consider moving out near ohare if commute was 12 minutes to downtown. I can only imagine this will bring down rents/ housing prices in the city. I will go downtown to enjoy an evening if the commute was only 12 mins. This is a game changer in my book not ' marginal improvement'.
Well hopefully no more than 2000 people do that during commuting hours because there's not enough capacity here. Not to mention that they'd have to get to O'Hare.
I'm sorry if that's how I came across, it's definitely not my feeling. I think the CTA works in that it's a system we should be investing much more in. And taxes should probably go up. I just don't want that money going to private enterprise, especially one run by someone who by all accounts does not believe in society.
You're thinking like a human. There are plenty of organizations where $5/mo and $150/mo are essentially indistinguishable and would not affect decision making in any way.
I second this. This means you don't have to setup and manage those master nodes. AWS will do this for you. A developer fixing an issue with your self-managed master nodes will be much more expensive than 150$/month.
As an individual this may look expensive, but as a company this is much cheaper than paying the loan of a developer.
Yes it is nice for experiments, but if you already invest thousands of dollars a month for cloud resources, an additional 150$ are for sure not a problem.
That's $150/mo before you even launch a single worker tho.
I don't know about you, but I'd personally rather pay the $5 if I don't need a serious cluster yet. How much in actual absolute dollars do you think this is going to cost you, just in order to figure out exactly how it works, and what other AWS widgets you'll also need to pay for in order to use it effectively?
I am a human, basically looking for a stepping stone on some actual cloud to land on that is comparable to Minikube, and this sure isn't it.
I'm pretty clearly in the minority with my opinion here, and I recognize that.
Amazon has made a substantial investment in Kubernetes here and that is nothing to shrug at. They are entitled (and justified) to recoup it. It's fair to say that K8S is not for lightweights, too.
AWS provides a fairly generous free tier and they are also justified to extract some payment from every user of their services that derives some non-negligible value. If you're using Kubernetes and you're not getting any value out of it, I think it's also fair to say that you're doing it wrong.
I serve a couple small websites from a very very small GKE cluster that costs well under $100/month. I don't worry about OS updates or Kubernetes upgrades. I don't worry about it going down.
You're not in the minority. It's well understood that there are amateurs trying to use the expensive clouds and shave off every penny, while the main customers are enterprise customers who couldn't notice a thousand dollars more or less.
It's just pointless for small users to argue about AWS costs. The service is not meant for them and it cannot fulfill their requirements.
You're obviously no slouch, and I respect your opinion, but I think Amazon is all about the long tail and without speculating too much about what they are thinking, I'll say they might disagree. They are obviously smart to go for the big money dollars first, but everything I know about "Long Tail" says you're wrong.
I absolutely agree with everything you said, if you only added "at this time" to the end of that last sentence.
What long tail do you mean? I would say the small tech companies with tens of developers and tens of servers are the long tail for AWS.
The service is too expensive and too complicated to be used by very small companies or individual users. There are also more appropriate competitors in that space.
You told me you thought I'm not in the minority, and others have come forward to agree. I think we are the long tail.
It is exactly as you say, companies that don't want to spend more than they absolutely need to on infrastructure. Shaving pennies to save money. We are each too small to make any significant money on us, taken individually. That's what makes us the long tail.
Do you think in 6 months, you will be able to get a non-HA Kubernetes master on Amazon's free tier? Almost surely within 12 months. At that time, they will have addressed the long tail. Today's announcement is not for us. It's for large enterprise customers that settled on Kubernetes (and 57% of Kubernetes is already on AWS, so many of them are likely not new customers.) We're both right, from opposite perspectives.
Sorry, there might be a misunderstanding. I meant that you were not in the minority, in terms of user count. There are people trying out AWS/Google, riding on the free tier, or just running a small site for the experience. People spending less than a hundred dollars a month could very well be the majority of the user count.
It doesn't mean that they bring any significant revenues or that the distribution follows a long tail. I would actually bet that amateur users are not forming a long tail.
And plenty of startups that choose between AWS and GCP at a point when those numbers are plenty distinguishable, even though later on they'll become those organizations.
You can afford ~5 preemptible instances for the cost of one full-time instance. I think you are severely overestimating the harm that is done by preempting/terminating instances in a prod Kubernetes cluster that is capably configured for full HA and distributed across zones. That's what it's made for – nodes are as disposable as pods. They may come and go as they please, and they'll be replaced as needed by the self-healing nature of the cluster and the scaling group.
(Why save a few dollars when you can get extra capacity instead? Especially when you have $100k of someone else's money to burn... so, for real though, anyone who has actually tried this configuration can chime in and confirm that it works as well as I imagine.)
I'm pretty sure that periodically shutting down some nodes is a boon for cluster utilization, too. One of the things that Kubernetes does not do on its own, is load rebalancing. You can configure the autoscaler to recognize when nodes are overprovisioned, and let it drain a few and shut them down... or you can let the preemptible nature of (some/all of your) nodes do it for you.
(Why not both? Some nodes are getting killed, or you're paying for resources you don't use, so... one way or another.)
"No experience" is a stretch. I'll concede, no significant Prod experience to speak of.
I got introduced to the Kubernetes ecosystem when Deis Workflow was rebuilt for it. Today, I'm a core contributor on the team that is building the fork of that project.
(It is a side thing for me. I'm very interested but I'm not spending hundreds on infrastructure every month. I have an infrastructure team at $dayJob, and they are not doing K8S at all, if you are having a hard time understanding how exactly I got here.)
It sounds like you must have taken some investment to qualify. But I believe my friend received the credit, and I have no idea if his business has received any investments or participates in any accelerator program.
It is a program (several different programs actually), you apply for it. This looks like a good place to start.[2]
If you don't think you qualify after reading that, might be worth talking to Arun Gupta anyway. He is the Principal Open Source Technologist. He was all over the Reddit thread answering questions about EKS today.[3] Super classy.
It looks like they offer $1000-$100000 depending on how fast you want to spend it and what stage you're at.[4] "AWS Activate - Portfolio Plus" is the program talked about, that offers $100k credit that expires in a year. If you don't qualify for that, you probably qualify for either the $1000 or the $15000.
LiveWatch Security | DevOps Engineer | Chicago, IL | ONSITE
LiveWatch is a home security and automation company that combines industry-leading technology and truly personal service to protect our customers.
We're looking for a Devops Engineer to work alongside our small engineering team (currently around 6, depending on your definitions) building robust systems and processes. We'd like someone with strong AWS chops and experience with provisioning/config management tools (we currently use Ansible and Terraform). Some other nice points to have would be experience with managing monitoring or metric aggregation systems and PCI compliance.
One notable feature to me is the transparency in the organization. The whys and hows of both the past and future are well communicated across most teams. The things we work on are clearly tied to goals, and at the end of the day, numbers. Our work doesn't exist in a vacuum and feels grounded in a service that actually helps people.
I use it a lot when doing exploratory SQL work or writing queries. I can tinker with my query in one pane and send it over to the `psql` repl in the other.
I do use psql's `\e` command to open the previous query in your `$EDITOR`, but that only lets me get the single previous query, and throws out any comments.
