rantanplan

Yes, it is Borg. Not k8s. Granted it is similar

The legit use case for companies like Google/Amazon etc is only to sell it to customers. None of these companies use K8s internally for real critical workloads.

It would be easy to create a script like that. You'd save quite a significant storage space, especially when you have tables with hundreds of millions of rows. The real problem though is with further migration of your schema down the line, where you're going to add/remove columns, as it's almost always the case.

Yes, SSH certificates are the way to go and pretty easy to set up. But what these articles fail to address is the user management aspect.

For the SSH certificate to be accepted, the unix user must first be present on the system. As far as I can understand, FreeIPA(or similar LDAP systems) cannot be used in conjunction with SSH certs. Whereas SSH keys are supported by these systems.

Can anyone provide any insight/experience with this?

> What is astral projecting?

The illusion that your mind escapes your body and/or visits other planes of existence etc. It has been replicated successfully in lab conditions many times over and is proven to be just an illusion.

Or, you know, a one $1 billion dollars donation and it's gone as well :D

> it's easy to lose a billion dollars

:O

Got it, thanks.

Search for "Ben Finegold" on YouTube. He has many lectures for beginners and he's one of the funniest GMs. That makes it less boring :)

I haven't met that many bridge architects :D

But do they build bridges by themselves? Are bridges built by a one man show?

And they don't have rules? And how do they get anything done?

> Are you aware that those things go through a design phase with the explicit objective of giving them a personality, right?

Not really. I see quite the opposite; during the design phase the team sets the rules in order to guarantee consistency and cohesiveness and avoid any deviation from what has been agreed upon. This rules out personal or whimsical contributions, because by definition it would ruin the process.

> Anyway, it's not like you can avoid giving your software a personality. You can't.

I alluded to that, if you re-read my comment, but a software having its unintended whims, compared to intentionally trying to give it some "personality" is not the same thing at all.

Because we haven't solved the main problem yet, which is to create robust software that does exactly what's supposed to do, no more no less. We have opinions, we have some indications of what may improve software development, but we are far away from comparing software engineering with other engineering domains. And it's only logical, because compared to other disciplines, software engineering is in its first baby steps.

Imagine if construction/aviation/etc engineers wanted their building/bridge/airplane to be whimsical and have its own personality. Are you scared yet?

Imagine if your out-of-band(not in the initial requirements/spec) and whimsical software contribution was responsible for a bug that brought down an airplane, or killed a patient. How whimsical would you be then? Well at least you wouldn't feel bored at your day job right? Anyway, I think you get my point.