> definition of concurrency quoted from the Python wiki [0] which is imprecise: "Concurrency in programming means that multiple computations happen at the same time."
Surprising to some, this is the literal definition. The word "concurrent" is a portmanteau from Latin, "con" translates as same and "current" translates as time. Concurrent literally means "same time". Comp Sci really needs to use a different word.
One thing that stands out to me is the incorrect use of the word "law" when referring to flight modes. Is this just a bad translation? Are any native French speakers familiar with the Airbus documentation able to comment if the concepts make more sense in French?
LXD is only available via Ubuntu proprietary Snap packages and not native .deb packages. Native as in Ubuntu is a Debian derivative, and .deb packages are the native package for Debian.
Snap has some downsides for server/infrastructure packages. Automatic updating being the most visible, but they are generally all about lack of control. This is what Snap does, it moves the power from users to developers.
"Giving developers operational responsibilities has greatly enhanced the quality of the services, both from a customer and a technology point of view. The traditional model is that you take your software to the wall that separates development and operations, and throw it over and then forget about it. Not at Amazon. You build it, you run it." - Werner Vogels, Amazon CTO (2006)
DevOps meant that Developers are also responsible for Operations. But that meaning is lost to time, just like hacking meaning programming.
Whats missing is an analysis of why CentOS failed. I think Rocky Linux needs to put out a plan how they will make themselves financially viable as we've had 3 high profile RHEL respins go down in the last 10 years.
CentOS failed twice, it ran out of money in 2014 and was rescued back then by Redhat sponsership. Again in 2020. Another widely used RHEL respin was Scientific Linux which mothballed when RHEL 7 was released.
There seems to be lots of potential users but not lots of potential money for a RHEL respin.
For a counter argument, I don't think M1 is going to disrupt anything. Its a great performer for sure, but its locked to a proprietary and closed ecosystem controlled by a single entity.
Its a new direction for Apple in their laptop architecture, and a solid first step, but the raw performance is not up to the fastest from AMD and Intel, and it lacks the ability to upgrade any of its components. I get it, its a laptop, but if you want to talk about performance lets put it out there: its a fast laptop.
People already in the Apple ecosystem will love M1, but it lacks a compelling reason to switch to Apple. Apple already made the best laptops, the M1 keeps that crown. People that were satisfied buying Windows laptops and Chromebooks will continue to do so because the criteria they used when making a buying decision involved other factors than "I want the best".
I expect SoC designs to fracture the CPU market in the coming years and kill AMD and Intel, but unless M1 opens up to other designers and companies its a tangent in the great CPU race.
The problem people don't want to address is these neighborhoods were not designed to handle this many people. They don't have the power, water, natural gas, sewerage, parking, etc to handle these many people. As a result everyone's quality of life is degraded.
I joined a startup in 2000. All employees starting before me were offered ~50k shares in the company as part of compensation while I was offered ~50k options. I was told options were the more correct way of doing way of doing things and other than the strike price they were essentially the same.
As a junior employee who didn't know any better (and no negotiation leverage anyway) I accepted the deal. Fast forward a couple of years and as a potential sale of the company approached it was announced that the stock was going to split 10 for 1. What this means is everyone with shares now had 10x, while option numbers were unaffected (ignoring that the stock price is now 10% of what it was).
When the company was bought the price per share was equal to the strike price of a second grant of options I had, making them worthless. I suspect most of the employee options were at this strike price.
A fellow employee with shares made 40x what I did for starting a month earlier. My payout was <$30k.
Surprising to some, this is the literal definition. The word "concurrent" is a portmanteau from Latin, "con" translates as same and "current" translates as time. Concurrent literally means "same time". Comp Sci really needs to use a different word.