supportlocal4h

If you had to make a few users and passwords and specify which tables were allowed for different users it is only because you chose to design your app this way. You must have felt there was some good reason to divide it up like that.

If that was the case, sqlite would have been unsuitable for your needs.

In other words, the complexity you describe was not caused by postgres. It was caused by your app design. Postgres was able to accommodate your app in a way that sqlite cannot.

Sqlite does have the "it's all contained in this single file" characteristic though. So if and when that's an advantage, there is that. Putting postgres in a container doesn't exactly provide the same characteristic.

For young impressionable readers, this is just a note that the parent comment is one person's opinion. There are opposing opinions here and throughout society.

Why is it a forced choice?

I think it would be super interesting if there became a GMail of Matrix--one super-dominant provider--but it was still possible to have Fastmail and Protonmail etc of Matrix. So you could actually still host your own little community that could still interact with the giant gorilla even if it was challenging to do so. Imagine that whichever federated protocol were extended with spam-blocking features that complicated federation such that it was even harder to run a server than it is today. But it was still possible, especially for those with enough money.

So every once in a while a newcomer like TikTok could blow up and become a fad, but some old grandma could just keep plugging away on their hilariously old-school service and still follow their granddaughter's high school swim team hosted on the hip new shiny service all the kids are going for today.

Ellsberg very eloquently articulated the fallacy that juniors were less trustworthy. I don't think their junior status is an issue. I think perhaps the bigger concern is their quantity. I'll leave it to probability and game theory experts to discuss whether it is better or worse to have more people capable of wielding such a weapon.

>It used to be that elite status was acquired through bravery, intelligence and integrity

It used to be that people tried to manipulate public perception to appear brave, intelligent, ...

That's a completely different topic. I'm tired of hearing people spout about a legal obligation to grow.

If you mean "it will hurt somebody's feelings" don't say "it's illegal". Those words do not mean the same thing.

If a company earned a $1 dividend for the last five years and the stock price is $10, what is wrong with paying out $1 dividend again next year and having the stock price stay at $10?

If a stockholder wants a bigger payout they can sell their share and invest the $10 in some other stock and take their chances.

Personally, I think a $10 share that pays out $1 and is still worth $10 is incredible. It doesn't bother me at all that neither the price nor the dividend has grown. It doesn't bother me that the square meters of manufacturing floor space hasn't grown. I don't mind that the number of employees hasn't grown. It's ok that the number of SKUs has stayed the same.

It's perfectly legal to not grow at all.

>>pump up the stock price and enrich the current shareholders.

>The problem here is that doing anything else as a publicly traded company is illegal.

No, it is not. You aren't breaking the law just because your stock price didn't go up.

Commercial ISP. People had dialup internet access before there were commercial ISPs.

Perhaps you missed the part about not needing distro-specific packagers by providing a way to run third party apps without having to trust third party packagers. You can deny access to the camera or filesystem or network without ever auditing the source code and trust that the software cannot misbehave in that aspect.

This isn't a knock on the value of package managers or maintainers. It's just an obvious step in better security. It seems silly to argue that integrity among package maintainers is the only safeguard we need. I personally like the little piece of plastic that my laptop has that slides across the built-in camera. It's not a software solution, or even an electronic safeguard. It's even better than the little DIP switch on my phone. I say, why not?

I'm not convinced that people who are not paying Redhat for RHEL Workstation support count as customers on this question.

But this is still an odd statement. Previous customers who very much relied on LibreOffice might move to some other platform or at least some other support service. Thus they would no longer be Redhat customers and Redhat would still be loyal to their customers.

I suspect the number of RHEL Workstation customers to be a relatively small part of Redhat's customer base. And those that depend on LO support to be even smaller. I don't expect this to affect RH's bottom line in any negative way.

So only people capable of auditing source code and build scripts deserve to be able to trust software? There should never be any other way to offer trustability?

There were plenty of plausible alternatives before Sun bought StarOffice and made it Free software. There were plenty of plausible alternatives when the Libre folks "freed" LibreOffice from Oracle.

LibreOffice is still the standard-bearer for open source office suites. It isn't competing with WordPerfect or AmiPro or Lotus 1-2-3 or Quattro Pro like it used to. The proprietary stuff have largely died and lost to the two big gorillas.

It is as important as ever to have the likes of LibreOffice around. There are plenty of plausible alternatives to Redhat itself, but surely everyone understands how important they and their like have been and continue to be.

Please read the book. One guy follows a funky compass provided by...God(?) from Jerusalem to some coast. On the coast God shows him where to mine ore to make tools. God shows him how to build a ship that can weather a long sea voyage all the way to the Americas.

The whole book has all sorts of interventions from God. Like every page is about God. If you're hung up on Egyptian writing you missed the whole point. That's the least incredulous part.

And some 18-year-old kid in the 1820s says an angel led him to these gold plates with all this modified Egyptian writing and God showed him how to translate it into English.

So this book is going to be a bunch of crazy nonsense, right? Read it. Seriously, read it. It is a better read than anything you did in your high school or college lit class. We can't have a decent critical discussion about the physics of it until you've read it.