I would vote for docker as well. The last time I had to inherit a system that ran on virtual machines, it was quite a pain to figure out how the software was installed, what was where in the file system, and where all the configuration was coming from. Replicating that setup took months of preparation.
By contrast, with Docker, all your setup is documented. The commands that were used to install our software into the virtual machines and were long gone are present right there in the Docker file. And building the code? An even bigger win for Docker. In the VM project, the build environment for the C++ portion of our codebase was configured by about a dozen environment variables, none of which were documented. If it were built in Docker, all the necessary environment variables would have been right there in the build environment. Not to mention the build commands themselves would be there too, whereas with VMs, we would often have developers build locally and then copy it into the VM, which was terrible for reproducibility and onboarding new developers.
That said, this all comes down to execution - a well-managed VM system can easily be much better than a poorly managed Docker system. But in general, I feel that Docker tends to be easier to work with than a VM. While Docker is far from flawless, there are a lot more things that can make life harder with VMs, at least from my experience.
I doubt that you're interested in arguing in good faith, but if by some miracle you do care about having an informed opinion before opening your mouth, how would you respond to things like this?
This essentially killed my (EU-based) startup in the project management and collaborate space. Before MSFT bundled Teams with O365 we were rapidly growing and closing enterprise customers in the automotive, energy and education industries with high retention rates. Right around the time the Teams bundling started our retention dropped, churn went through the roof, growth slowed down, we failed to raise our next round because of it and had to drastically downsize the company, causing even more churn (about 80% net churn in 2 years). This move by the EU is good, but too little too late - 99% of the companies that were hurt by this have already shut down, and the ones still running will take years to recover...
A few months after opening a non-compliance case on Apple and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Commission has shared its preliminary findings with Apple. And the bottom line is that the current App Store rules are in breach of the DMA. Confirmed violations of the DMA can lead to fines of up to 10% of global annual...
At the heart of Monday’s findings are three elements of Apple’s practices, including fees charged to app developers for every purchase made within seven days of linking out to the commercial app.
This is, in my opinion, the most egregious non-compliant practice from Apple. They have no reason whatsoever to entitle themselves to purchases made outside their repository just because the software runs on their hardware. It's also the most asinine set of rules that they established to pretend that they were complying with the DMA.
It's a bit disappointing that it will take so long before the fines can be enforced, but I really hope that they get the maximum penalty over this because it's really the most shockingly brazen breach of the DMA's terms. In fact, I hope that they get imposed the maximum penalty multiple times - the same article I linked mentions that there are two other DMA investigations being launched into Apple, though I don't know what grounds those other investigations are looking into.
And I really hope Apple gets the message loud and clear: they're gonna start making less money. And this is a good thing. They don't deserve it, and they were never entitled to it in the first place. This is what happens when you invent new revenue streams that are criminally worthless.
The intent is to allow companies time to implement the change. But if you'll pardon my cynicism, in practice, what ends up happening is companies just use it as a tactic to delay the implementation and continue recording the revenue.
At the very least they should forfeit the revenue that they earn during the period for this. I'm not sure exactly how the fines work and whether they take this into account, but I doubt Apple is seriously going to use the 12-month period to actually come clean and change their ways. I think they'll just use it as more time to come up with some new bullshit form of non-compliance.
So, I have a python script I'd like to run from time to time from the CLI (on Linux) that resides inside a venv. What's the recommended/intended way to do this?...
Just in case this comment didn't make it explicitly clear, you can just invoke the python binary inside your venv directly and it will automatically locate all the libraries that are installed in your virtual environment.
To show how this works, you can look at the sys.path variable to see which paths python will search for modules when you run import statements. Try running python3 -c 'import sys; print(sys.path)' using your system python, and you will only see system python library paths. Then, try running it again after replacing python3 with the full path to the python3 binary in your venv, and you will see an additional entry in the output with the lib directory in your venv, which shows that python will also look there for modules when an import statement is executed.
Such a sad world we live in. When the internet was hitting the mainstream, virtually everything was standardized. There were RFCs for probably every standard the internet operated on. Email, HTTP, DNS, TCP/UDP/IP, etc.
Today, we live in a world where we can't even decide on a fucking chat protocol without making it a proprietary piece of garbage. The internet has been consolidated into giant companies that see interoperability as a weakness that enable their competitors and prevent them from oppressing and exploiting their users.
A small group of gatekeepers that kill anything nice for their own short-term gains: it is sad but true that it feels like any technology that's commercially successful will end this way.
Everyone in this thread is saying that this comes as no surprise, and that is certainly true. But the thing is, a lot of management types do know this already but they simply don't care for two reasons:
They care more about leverage/control over employees than they do about actual good work being done. You cannot understate at all how important employee control can be for managers and how seriously they're willing to destroy their own business to keep this kind of power.
RTO is basically a layoff program. As much as I love working remotely, it's very important to keep in mind that remote workers are the first ones that will get laid off when the business wants to cut back - purely because of how easy it is to do. They can just mandate RTO without actually calling it a layoff and know many workers will outright quit, and the business won't have to comply with whatever local regulations are in place around layoffs. Still, this shouldn't sound like comfort for employees that do work in the office - there's a good chance that once RTO is in place, another round of layoffs will strike when the company doesn't meet its cut targets. So any time a business announces return to office, it means that there's a good chance that layoffs will follow too.
tl;dr: Managers knew this would happen all along too - it was just a trade they were very willing to make.
Sure, fair points. We should distinguish good and bad managers here before we get too specific. The bad managers will do whatever they're told to do by upper management. Upper management just says "cut down to this number" and they do it because they only care about their own incentives and don't care about the consequences. The good managers will probably realize the downsides of these decisions and will try their best to blunt the impact of these decisions. But in the end, they still have to report to higher levels of management, so there's little that they can ultimately do. So they're probably going to end up doing the same thing anyway.
This is why management is such a hard position, especially in the lower levels. You're basically at the end of the chain and usually have little power to get what you want. At the same time, you still have to make lots of different groups happy - upper management, your workers and whoever you're delivering your product for. All the things that you listed are things that I'm sure they would like to have, but probably end up having to get sacrificed anyway. If there's only one group of people that you're going to please, chances are that it's going to be the people you report to.
There is no way to make a network request faster than a function call.
Apologies in advance if this it too pedantic, but this isn't necessarily true. If you're talking about an operation call that takes ~seconds to run, then the network overhead is negligible. And if you need specialized hardware for it, then it definitely could be delegate it out to a separate machine over the network. Examples could include requiring a GPU, more RAM, or even a faster CPU if your main application is running on more power-efficient CPUs.
I'm not saying that this is true in every case - they are definitely niche cases. But I definitely wouldn't say that network requests are never faster than local function calls.
Agreed. It's really hard to understate how ineffective "voting with your wallet" can be. The fact is simply that nobody honestly cares. Even if you get 100 people to boycott a company, would 100 out of millions of consumers really make a difference? Of course not.
And of course, you always have cases like this where everybody does it. Same thing goes for TVs - if everyone spies on you, the only real solution is to not have a TV. Yes, I know there are exceptions here and there, but bad practices like these force buyers into making compromises that they shouldn't have to. Capitalism should be predicated on companies offering the best product to earn their income. It should not be about companies having the least bad product and trying every terrible thing that they can get away with.
(Of course, we all know that capitalism is a farce.)
I installed NetGuard about a month ago and blocked all internet to apps, unless they're on a whitelist. No notifications from this particular system app (that can't be disabled) until recently when it started making internet connection requests to google servers. Does anyone know when this became a thing?...
All your points are sound. The issue that I have with this is that remote disable functionality is not necessary to achieve any of these aims. Before they were connected to the internet, people were still able to rent/lease autos and the world managed to survive just fine. There were other ways for lenders to get remunerated for breaking lease terms - they could issue an additional charge, get a court order for repossession, etc. Remote disable was never needed or warranted.
So let's start by considering the due process here. Before, there was some sort of process involved in the repossession act. With remote disable however, the lender can act as judge, jury and executioner so to speak - that party can unilaterally disable the device with no oversight. And if the lender is in the wrong, there is likely no recourse. Another potential issue here is that the lender can change the terms at any time - it can arbitrarily decide that it doesn't like what you're doing with the device, decide you're in breach, and hit that remote kill switch. A lot of these things could technically happen before too, but the barriers have been dramatically lowered now.
On top of this, there are great privacy concerns as well. What kinds of additional information does the lender have? What right do they have to things like our location, our habits, when we use it, and all of the other personal details that they can infer from programs like this?
There are probably lots of other issues here, but another part of the problem is that we can't even start to imagine what kinds of nefarious behaviors they can execute with this new information and power. We are well into the age where our devices are becoming our enemies instead of our advocates. I shudder to think what the world would look like 20 years from now if this kind of behavior isn't stopped.
Stop use docker ( lemmy.world )
EU finds Microsoft violated antirust laws by bundling Teams ( www.engadget.com )
Apple’s App Store breaches EU’s Digital Markets Act ( techcrunch.com )
A few months after opening a non-compliance case on Apple and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Commission has shared its preliminary findings with Apple. And the bottom line is that the current App Store rules are in breach of the DMA. Confirmed violations of the DMA can lead to fines of up to 10% of global annual...
Recommended way to run my scripts from a venv?
So, I have a python script I'd like to run from time to time from the CLI (on Linux) that resides inside a venv. What's the recommended/intended way to do this?...
This is our best look yet at RCS working on an iPhone ( www.androidauthority.com )
Ordered back to the office, top tech talent left instead, study finds ( www.washingtonpost.com )
Without paywall: https://archive.ph/0KvTq
Let's do micro service ( sh.itjust.works )
How to opt out of the privacy nightmare that comes with new Hondas ( sherwood.news )
Google Allows Creditors to Brick Your Phone ( lemmy.world )
I installed NetGuard about a month ago and blocked all internet to apps, unless they're on a whitelist. No notifications from this particular system app (that can't be disabled) until recently when it started making internet connection requests to google servers. Does anyone know when this became a thing?...