Leveraging our deep virtualization experience, Microsoft will now offer containers with a new level of isolation previously reserved only for fully dedicated physical or virtual machines
Uh. I don't understand how that sentence has any meaning. Particularly the "a new level of isolation previously reserved only for fully dedicated physical or virtual machines" bit. I mean, isn't that what a container is, a virtual machine? And if so, why is 'container' even involved here?
I don't know much about the container scene. I thought they were literally just virtual machines, with presumably some standardized way of spinning them up programmatically. Maybe someone can correct me.
A container isn't just a virtual machine: a VM involves providing an abstracted machine environment in which you run a whole OS, including a fresh kernel. A Container involves starting an extra, isolated user-space with no extra kernel of machine layer.
> I don't know much about the container scene. I thought they were literally just virtual machines, with presumably some standardized way of spinning them up programmatically. Maybe someone can correct me.
Close but containers share the same kernel. It allows them to do many things more efficiently but it's not a straight up virtual machine.
To build on this, containerized apps have less overhead than a full on virtual machine, since the binaries aren't replicated every time. Like, de-dupe for your VMs, to use a weak analogy.
However, because they all share the same kernel, you're limited to a single flavor of containers per host. So a host can provide for all windows apps, or all linux apps, but not a mix.
It makes the most sense when you have a need for many separate instances of similar applications. You can fit many more containers in a given host than their full VM equivalent, but lose the complete abstraction (and therefor, flexibility), that a VM gives you.
> So a host can provide for all windows apps, or all linux apps, but not a mix.
While this is true I feel like at some point in the future we're going to be able to mix both. I've seen some rough ideas as to how it could happen but they sounded almost impossible to pull off. Still, if we had a way to mix containers it would be absolutely amazing.
It would be cool, but I can see a point of diminishing returns. If you kept it to say, two OS flavors or so, yeah, not bad. But the moment you go down that path, the abstraction needed to ensure both sets of binaries play correctly with the underlying hardware and still remain isolated and separate starts to eat into the overhead you were trying to save in the first place. It'd be cool to pull off, but I have to imagine that it'd be for niche applications.
It gives me some sense of satisfaction that I can write such a convincing representation of such a person. But then I get sucked into a philosophical discussion with myself about whether authors can accurately depict characters with personality traits that they do not themselves possess. And that makes me worried that I might be depressed and in self-denial about it.
The facts remain that ancestor post needs to do something not part of the ordinary routine, and that I ought to finish that first book instead of posting on HN.
I'm much more tired of comments on ambiguous naming. There are at least two other people in my city who have my name, and many more who share either my first or last name. Somehow life goes on and this is not a topic of major controversy. But when two pieces of software have similar names, people just can't resist commenting endlessly and upvoting this content-free bikeshedding at the expense of actual discussion.
There are at least two other people in my city who have my name
I'm presented with information to parse about technology topics daily. Sometimes, I have to search for them and have all sorts of name collisions.
I never, ever search for information about you.
people just can't resist commenting endlessly and upvoting this content-free bikeshedding at the expense of actual discussion
One man's bike shedding is another thousand men's irritating trend. Personally, I very rarely see anyone called out for the trendy names and awful, buzzword-laden non-descriptions that infest projects.
Yes! Especially when people use an existing word like 'redshift' as their product name. (It seems to be a popular choice! I remember there also was this astronomy software for the Mac called Redshift.)
Of course, it gets even more ridiculous as the words get more common, eg see recent discussions about 'Paper' or 'Layout'
It's not 'just' personal projection, nor irrelevant, if accurate. Obviously you'd have to run the experiment to find out for sure, but it's not meaningless to contribute "I would expect anyone I know to think of Amazon's Redshift first". For someone who doesn't know that others feel the opposite definition is the 'default', it might be useful to find out.
You know, I used to be subscribed to a technical mailing list, around the time that .NET first came out. One guy started abusing the mailing list like mad. Asking extremely simple questions that he could have answered with a brief skim of the published documentation, or a web search.
After awhile, people started to berate him for this behavior. He apologized, but kept doing it. He kept getting answers, and kept learning.
Last I heard, he'd gone on to be a team lead, then run his own, successful company. He didn't let fear of public annoyance or seeming stupid hinder his own progress.
I'm not saying everyone should gleefully annoy others, but I've met far, far too many technical people who spend more time on their anxiety than they spend on actually learning and doing. You have to find a balance, and obsessing over the theoretical time expended across a group of people is probably not productive.
I won't deny that selfishness and abuse can work. That doesn't mean it's a good thing, or that I'll encourage it in any way.
If you're doing things right then there won't be any anxiety when asking your question in public, because you'll have done all you can on your own and be in a position to ask intelligently. If you're abusing other people's time because you can't be arsed to put in effort on your own, you should feel anxious about it.
If you're abusing other people's time because you can't be arsed to put in effort on your own, you should feel anxious about it.
Why? What's the better thing they have to spend time on, and why aren't they already spending time there? You're talking about people who spend time on some forum because that is, essentially, a hobby for them. You're not "wasting" someone's time when their time has no particular value in the first place.
People who offer free help typically do so because they like to work on interesting problems, not act as an intermediary between a lazy programmer and the documentation.
You're assuming that all kinds of help are equal in the eyes of someone who practices this "hobby," and that's simply not true. It's basically the equivalent of, "You just waste your time in that soup kitchen anyway, why not come cook me a meal in my mansion instead?"
People who offer free help typically do so because they like to work on interesting problems
That's pure conjecture on your part. I rarely see newbies asking for help on interesting problems, yet I see plenty of people willing to answer their questions.
It's basically the equivalent of, "You just waste your time in that soup kitchen anyway, why not come cook me a meal in my mansion instead?"
No it isn't. It's the equivalent of, "you just waste your time in that soup kitchen anyway, why not allow me to come to the soup kitchen as well?"
Now that I'm a white collar software developer on a solid middle class income mixing with middle class folks
Are you in the Bay Area? The Bay Area is obsessed with travel. Not that there's anything wrong with that, since I do feel that travel is great, but many in the Bay Area have no idea what it's like to come from a background where it's not even considered a possibility.
When I lived and worked in Arizona, the only "travel" anyone was interested in were weekend trips to Mexico, or maybe visiting an iconic American city (e.g. SF). If I'd brought up Thailand, they wouldn't even have known enough to make ladyboy jokes.
That's why everyone wears hoodies and tshirts: to show that they're different from MBAs and the suits and the bankers.
That's a really weird conclusion to come to. I wear hoodies and tee shirts because 1) my job doesn't require more, 2) my hoodie and tee are comfortable and easily adaptable to changing temperature, and 3) clothing shopping is a chore, an extreme annoyance.
Well-fitting "slob" clothing looks better than poorly-fitting mid-range "nice" clothing, particularly when one doesn't fit the body type of the target audience for the latter.
It's a counter-intuitive argument, but an extremely astute one. Consider: Many people would rather not wear an ill-fitting 'nice' outfit, or may not have the sartorial education to do so, but feel obliged to do so as a condition of their employment. You won't be able to get a job as a bank clerk if you show up dressed in a hoodie and jeans, for example; you need to show up in a shirt and tie (if you're a guy) even it's the cheapest item that you could find at Men's Wearhouse and you don't look very good in it.
'Well-fitting slob clothing' not only signals that you're not subject to some sort of onerous dress code imposed by your employer (within reason), but also that you can afford to spend money on what most people could consider leisurewear. Further, while you may genuinely not be interested in clothes, picking them out in the morning, looking at other peoples', or shopping for them - and while I can sympathize with your disinterest - that very indifference is itself a mark of affluence. Most people work hard at that stuff because they feel obliged to create a certain image to get employed, get laid, and maintain their self-respect. If they don't care about clothes and they choose not to spend money on them, and they don't happen to put out certain other socioeconomic signals, then they will just be dismissed as scruffy bums.
not only signals that you're not subject to some sort of onerous dress code imposed by your employer
If anything, that signifies low status. The vast majority of people in hoodies and tees are not six figure engineers and designers.
but also that you can afford to spend money on what most people could consider leisurewear.
Oh, come on. Hoodies and tees are cheap. Really cheap. And versatile.
Give me a couple of basic color tees, one hoodie, and two pairs of jeans, and that's my wardrobe. I don't need to cycle my shirt colors and patterns, monitor my tie usage, iron my clothes, etc.
I really glad some of you in Tech started a trend to kill the Tie. I never saw the need for a tie. Plus, I honestly never found a tie that felt mildly comfortable. I graduated college in the late 80's, and the thought of wearing a tie was always on my mind. It has no function, other than conformity. A girdle at least has a purpose--a bad purpose, but at east there's some logic behind it? My father felt the same way. Plus, it seems like every time I felt taken advantage of in business, the guy was wearing a tie?
Sort of bugs me that some basic clothing that's good for outdoors and daily life in the northwest gets co-opted into a fashion thing
So it's the 1990s again? Cool, cargo pants must be coming back, too. I wonder if it has anything to do with the rise of Portland in pop culture. Portlandia's got it right: it's still the 90's in Portland (I'm from the area, it's pretty much true).
Despite being a Windows developer for 90% of my career, I have no idea why anyone uses MSBuild. I've created several automated build and deployment systems, but I always used the command line Visual Studio interface.
Honestly, I don't know why anyone wants MSBuild. Poking around, people cite not needing to install the VS IDE on build servers, but I see zero drawback to doing that. Why would I want to maintain project dependencies, build orders, and whatnot in two places, when I could just build in exactly the same way, using the same solution/project files, on my dev box and my build server?
It seems to me that this is actually vastly more meaningful to traditionally open-source LAMP developers who are considering C# and ASP.Net on Linux in the future.
Visual Studio uses MSBuild. csproj/vbproj files are MSBuild files. MSBuild will take an SLN file as an argument and do the same as Visual Studio would do with it when you load it and click build.
Given the age of projects I've worked on, and that it's unclear whether MSBuild is involved in VS's C++ compilation, I don't think your assumption is correct.
incorrect, the visual studio solution file has build configuration details that msbuild will not honour (e.g. you can specify certain build order parameters), as I found out recently with a project I took over. (I was wondering why building from the command line with ms build produced different results).
> I could just build in exactly the same way, using the same solution/project files, on my dev box and my build server
Do you run VS on your production servers? Because that's where it will shit a brick because you forgot to install ASP.Net MVC KB123123213 but the IDE installed it as part of update 4. Etc etc...
Yeah, I prefer not to use the built in Visual Studio project templates. Best to always use bin deployed binaries explicitly installed from NuGet packages. In the future (later this year) we can also bin deploy the runtime (.NET Core) and base class library (Core FX).
For every Carmack, there's 1000s of unspoken/unheard of people doing the same thing.
Well, okay, then, there must be millions and millions of programmers writing CRUD apps and for loops, because that covers probably 95% of the general value created in programming worldwide.
I don't see anything wrong with being impressed by the accomplishments and interests of others. I'm not Carmack. I'll never achieve anything like his level of productivity. I don't care, but I'm still vaguely interesting in reading about the guy.
I don't plan to climb Mt. Everest either, but I wouldn't mind hearing a story about it. And yeah, there are thousands of people planning Mt. Everest climbs, but that has zero bearing on my feelings about it.
Uh. I don't understand how that sentence has any meaning. Particularly the "a new level of isolation previously reserved only for fully dedicated physical or virtual machines" bit. I mean, isn't that what a container is, a virtual machine? And if so, why is 'container' even involved here?
I don't know much about the container scene. I thought they were literally just virtual machines, with presumably some standardized way of spinning them up programmatically. Maybe someone can correct me.