thatcks

I am the parent, and any competent fsck should find these issues. Fsck traditionally explicitly verifies claimed free space against actual free space, and in a filesystem with ACLs it should also verify that filesystem level metadata like ACLs is sane, just as fsck verifies (for example) sane inode flags and inode field values. ZFS scrubs explicitly do not verify spacemap consistency or a lot of other sorts of consistency.

ZFS scrubs don't even verify that a filesystem's directory tree is acyclic and can reach every claimed in-use filesystem object, but I'm not aware of ZFS bugs in that area. This is because ZFS's 'metadata' for scrubs is much different than how it works in a traditional filesystem. To phrase it in conventional filesystem terms, ZFS has a big list of all in-use inodes, and it verifies the filesystem checksums by going through this list. The 'filesystem metadata' that a scrub verifies is the structure of this list of in-use inodes, plus some other things around the corners.

The article is correct but it downplays an important limitation of ZFS scrubs when it talks about how they're different from fsck and chkdsk. As the article says (in different words), ZFS scrubs do not check filesystem objects for correctness and consistency; it only checks that they have the expected checksum and so have not become corrupted due to disk errors or other problems. Unfortunately it's possible for ZFS bugs and issues to give you filesystem objects that have problems, and as it stands today ZFS doesn't have anything that either checks or corrects these. Sometimes you find them through incorrect results; sometimes you discover they exist through ZFS assertion failures triggering kernel panics.

(We run ZFS in production and have not been hit by these issues, at least not that we know about. But I know of some historical ZFS bugs in this area and mysterious issues that AFAIK have never been fully diagnosed.)

I can't remember the 10G firewall figures we got in testing off the top of my head, but we didn't max out the 10G network; I think we were getting somewhere in the 8G range. This is significantly better than our OpenBSD performance but not quite up to the level of full network speed or the full speed that two Linux machines can get talking directly to each other over our 10G network. I also suspect that performance depends on which specific NICs you have due to driver issues. The live performance of our deployed FreeBSD firewalls is harder to assess because people here don't push the network that hard very often (although every so often someone downloads a big thing from the right Internet source to get really good rates).

(I'm the author of the linked-to article.)

The short version is that we wound up not feeling particularly enthused about OpenBSD itself. We have a much better developed framework for handling Ubuntu machines, making it simply easier to have some more Ubuntu machines instead of OpenBSD machines, and we also felt Bind on Ubuntu was likely to be better supported than a ports Bind on OpenBSD. If everything else is equal we're going to make a machine Ubuntu instead of OpenBSD.

There is no 'RAW' format as such. In practice, 'RAW' is a jargon term for "camera specific format with basically raw sensor readings and various additional information". Typically the various RAW formats don't embed the spectral information, just a camera model identifier, because why waste space on stuff the camera makers already know and will put in their (usually maker specific) processing software.

(Eg Nikon's format is 'NEF', Canon's is 'CR3', and so on, named after the file extensions.)

I don't know if DNG can contain (optional) spectral response information, but camera makers were traditionally not enthused about sharing such information, or for that matter other information they put in their various raw formats. Nikon famously 'encrypted' some NEF information at one point (which was promptly broken by third party tools).

One problem is that you cannot have a universal format that is both truly raw and doesn't embed camera specific information. Camera sensors from different companies (and different generations) don't have the same color (or if you prefer, spectral) responses with both their Bayer filter layer and the underlying physical sensor. If you have truly raw numbers, you need the specific spectral response information to interpret them; if you don't need spectral response information, you don't actually have truly raw numbers. People very much want raw numbers for various reasons, and also camera companies are not really enthused about disclosing the spectral response characteristics of their sensors (although people obviously reverse engineer them anyway).

This should be fixed for you now. To my surprise, some legitimate versions of Firefox report 'rv:109.0' with a Firefox/<ver> version that is not 109 (along with all of the crawlers that have latched on to 'rv:109.0' as something they put in their User-Agent strings along with random old Firefox versions).

There was a little glitch in the scraping protection where an errant regular expression briefly blocked all Firefox versions. Which is especially bad because I (the blog author) exclusively use Firefox, so I was blocking myself. The management apologizes for the problem (and generally allows much older Firefox versions than Chrome versions, as people seem to still use them on various platforms).

mypy sadly doesn't accept 'NewType('MyType', Any)'; it complains 'error: Argument 2 to NewType(...) must be subclassable (got "Any") [valid-newtype]'. Possibly this is allowed by other Python type checkers. It is accepted at runtime, and I wish mypy allowed Any as a specific exemption to its checks.

(I'm the author of the linked-to article.)

My understanding is that the original SunOS windowing system was deeply connected to the kernel (for instance, windows were devices). The original purpose of the signal (in SunOS) appears to have been telling graphical programs that their window had 'changed' and needed to be repainted (I don't know if this was simply from resizing or if it was any damage), which makes a certain amount of sense for a kernel based windowing system (the kernel is right there and you need some way to notify programs). The use of the signal for telling programs in terminal windows that the window had resized appears to have been distinctly secondary, and only the latter can interact with their window through in-band escape sequences.

(I'm the author of the linked-to article.)

A CLA is a legal contract between two parties. An open source license is a general grant of additional permissions under copyright (and sometimes some additional promises regarding things like patents), provided that the person using those permissions (to make and distribute copies) adheres to certain requirements.

(I am the author of the linked-to article.)

As far as I can see, generalized control flow complicates the situation because you need to propagate a variety of signalling results up the tree. Consider a for loop with a switch inside of it, inside of which is an if with a return; if you hit that return, you need to propagate 'return from the function with this result' out through the containing if, switch, and for loop, which means that the Eval() or equivalent for each of them probably all need to know about all of your early-return options (since a 'break' is different from a 'return', especially if you support multi-level breaks).

(I'm the author of the linked-to article.)