There are some semantic differences compared to POSIX filesystems. A couple big ones:
- You can only append to an object, and each object can only have one writer at the time. This is useful for distributed systems - you could have one process adding records to the end of a log, and readers pulling new records from the end.
- It's also possible to "finalize" an object, meaning that it can't be appended to any more.
Slight nit: "zonal" doesn't necessarily mean "not replicated", it means that the replicas could all be within the same zone. That means they can share more points of failure. (I don't know if there's an official definition of zonal.)
I don't know of a single GCP product that's been shut down, although I could be missing something. But their track record for GCP is, I think, what you would want a cloud provider's record to be.
(I should mention that I work for GCP. But this is just based on my own memory.)
Got it, thank you! CockroachDB is the only one I know offhand that does what you're looking for. Another comment mentioned Vitess, which might also work.
It seems like there are a lot of options for large scale analytics, but I don't know a lot for high throughout geo-redundant transaction processing.
I mean to be fair Google has also tried very, very hard to improve home internet access for people, to the point of setting up their own ISP and running municipal fiber networks. That's a pretty big try, and I really wish it had taken off beyond the places where Google Fiber operates.
(NB: I work at Google, but this comment has nothing to do with my work.)
Someone close to me has Celiac disease, and getting an official diagnosis will let you do more than just eliminate gluten. For one thing, you could participate in one of the multiple ongoing drug trials for Celiac that are looking for participants.
The Celiac foundation has a list of them if you're interested, but you'll need a Celiac diagnosis to be eligible.
Imagine if Barnes and Noble had done it, and you could drive to one of their stores to quietly sip a drink and peruse the new machines they had provisioned recently.
I think Microsoft's strategy (I work there, but I don't have any special knowledge of this) is to be the best possible platform for development in general, not just machine learning. That's why they bought GitHub, and it's also why they have WSL, remote debugging on Linux, etc. I expect they will go wherever they think developers want to be to achieve that goal.
I can see this hurting traditional Linux graphics systems and development tooling, but I think the main dynamic driving this is not proprietary-vs-open, it's Microsoft's ability to coordinate large numbers of developers, because they have a massively more united org than random hobbyists.
If you combined all of the efforts of all of the people working on Linux tools for the past 20 years and got them working on the same thing, it would probably be an amazing stack, and Microsoft would probably just support it. Instead, the open source efforts have been scattered among a lot of different ideas, which means there hasn't been a single windowing toolkit, IDE, or whatever for people to rally around and all contribute to. And as a result, Microsoft can show up, get a few hundred people pulling in the same direction, and have the market-leading product not through any dirty tricks, but just by putting in more coordinated effort than anyone else.
Can you give some examples of the mindset of construction and manufacturing businesses? It would be interesting to me, and I think to other people here too.
I have a suspicion, which I have never verified, that the things that make emacs great are basically the things that made Lisp Machines great back when those were a thing - that emacs is best viewed as a Lisp Machine embedded in a modern operating system.
I never used a real Lisp Machine, but I'd love if someone who did can confirm this.
I wonder if anyone uses greenhouses as carbon capture for traditional power plants, rather than running their own mini-power plant mostly for the CO2 output.
I don't work there any more, but back when I was at Google Cloud we developed our own benchmarking suite, partly to answer questions like this. It's open source, you can run it too: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/PerfKitBenchmarker
If you adopt this article's three-category system (or any system with a finite number of ordered categories), then I think in the long run the number of positive and negative changes have to converge toward equality.
If we hear more stories of negative changes, then maybe the negative ones are more memorable, or people are more likely to comment on them.
(I work on Rapid storage.)