mpasternacki

I think 10.3 has an older version of i915, this has worked on vanilla, but 11 has already Linux 3.7 or 3.8 DRM imported which breaks with thunderbolt display, and it was fixed in drm-next-4.7 patch (which is going to land on HEAD someday, but it might not be backported to 11).

Looks nice, thanks!

Author here. Debugging dual boot is interesting, debugging virtualbox is not. And I was curious if I can get it running. I just was too lazy to figure it out, I found a more interesting problem to work on. In the end, I stayed in the native FreeBSD install, so there was no motivation to figure out the custom kernel in virtualbox (it is quite simple in bhyve, though)

It doesn't work yet with GELI as far as I know, so for encrypted root /boot still needs to be on a separate partition. There was some work to support encrypted /boot, I'm not sure where it stands now, but I'd be very surprised if it supported encrypted ZFS.

I’m author of that gist (just noticed I have some comments there I need to reply to), still running the setup, now with FreeBSD 12-CURRENT. Tl;dr it generally works, still no wi-fi support. X works fine (running with drm-next-4.7 patches to get external thunderbolt display to work; vanilla kernel works fine with built-in and DVI display, gets confused by Thunderbolt display only). Gave up on pkg because I want to control my build flags, I’m using portmaster now and thinking about setting up poudriere on a bigger server. Feel free to ask if you have any particular questions.

Not necessarily, they might have just generated revokation certs which are separate (so that they can be used in case your private key is lost). Keeping a revokation cert would be a responsible thing to do, just in case something like this happens.

If you have a text version, at least preprocessing and proposing changes could be doable (especially that as far as I know, formal French is quite uniform - but then, it's what I heard from others, all French I actually know comes from a Dexter's Laboratory episode). In Poland, though, the original acts are published as PDFs, and the text extraction itself needs assistance, if it's even possible without OCR: the international agreements that are side-by-side in multiple languages (Polish, other party, sometimes also English) are usually image scans saved as PDFs.

There are services (external, secondary to the published acts) that published a re-unified, highlighted version. I would imagine a repository that maintains a current unified text, with the "update acts" as commit messages (or even with the original PDFs somehow linked to the commits. I'm sure it can be implemented somehow in Git plumbing. Annotations, maybe?). I'd even pay for this kind of service - but probably not as much as lawyers who need it for their daily work pay for the existing equivalents.

Is this account actually maintained by Bundestag (or other actual piece of state administration), or is it just a mirror? Also, either German law is really mature and stable, or this repository is unmaintained: last commit oin master is Jan 2013.

I'd love to see such a repository for the acts in my country, by the way, but the official source is a PDF, and most of the published acts are actually patches to existing (already heavily "patched"), like "In the section II, item 13a, change words 'foo and bar' to 'foo, baz and quux'". This mess untangled into an actual, highlighted, unified text is an actual product, and lawyers happily pay the subscription. I imagine it is similar in other countries.

Huh. Doesn't the fact that Pirate Party's and Independence Party's results are well within each other's confidence intervals make it a tie?

I don't think that beginning your question with "I cannot begin to imagine how fucktarded you'd need to be to do this" is going to encourage people to answer that question…

That aside, my approach with Linux/Docker is to have a "fat" host system that is open to the outside world, terminates SSL, load balances and proxies the containers' services (nginx), and provides global services are either shared between containers (Postfix smarthosting to Sendgrid, DNS cache, rsyslog), or services that can manage user/service isolation well enough on their own (PostgreSQL). Containers run mostly applications, or services that I need in multiple instances or versions.

I do containerize Redis, as it can't be safely shared across multiple services (no privilege isolation, too easy for one service to DoS the other with a blocking operation), but then I don't consider Redis to be a database – it's rather a "shared state server", kind of a more sophisticated memcached.

However, I understand the approach of CoreOS, which minimizes role of the host OS. In this model, host's only role is to support containers, and every other process needs to be containerized. From this point of view, Postgres is an application. This way, I can flexibly run multiple version of Postgres, try to upgrade it without needing to set up separate host service, and so on. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable with that, but I understand how it could be useful.

Regarding storage performance, database's data directory would need to be a volume anyway (to be able to upgrade database without trowing away the data). A volume is just a `mount --bind`, without any aufs layers, to any point of the filesystem, so it doesn't seem to me that i/o performance hit would be noticeable…