PSA: If you are using AWS, you should be using Session Manager for remote access to your EC2 instances if possible - it is free and trivial to enable. Azure offers Azure Bastion, which is exactly what it says. Both of these can keep hostile SSH connections completely away from your servers, and also help to aggregate access logs.
I am currently evaluating dsq and its partner desktop app DataStation. AIUI, the developer of DataStation realised that it would be useful to extract the underlying pieces into a standalone CLI, so they both support the same range of sources.
The USP of Hatch is that it uses the latest generation of Python standards and tech under the covers, so you have a unified tool that's less quirky than previous ones. Poetry and pipenv predate some of the improvements in Python packaging, so had to develop some things in their own way.
There are a few projects that take inspiration from PowerShell, but they haven't got mass adoption. I have hopes that Nushell will be a success when it gets to 1.0:
It supports various types of file stores for syncing between devices. I've used OneDrive and WebDAV. The project has also recently launched a cloud service for people who want to sync between devices but don't want to set up a network file store.
The wheels started to come off with .NET back when ORMs became a thing, slightly before Rails. Look up "ALT.NET" movement for the history.
TLDR: Microsoft wanted .NET developers to only use tech from Microsoft, used various tactics to achieve that, and people got the message. If you wanted to use modern tech or develop innovative stuff, .NET was not a comfortable place to be.
Microsoft have tried to move past that, but never really have. .NET has never had a healthy Open Source eco-system.
It does the stuff that you need without excess weight, the look and feel is flexible enough that you can make it look like other systems if you prefer, and the small development team consistently put out new releases to fix and refine it without any drama.
AWS use it for their Linux cloud-based desktop service, probably for these reasons.
Ubuntu MATE is a great showcase for what can be done with MATE. It's arguably more user-friendly than the main Ubuntu, with the MATE desktop and quick-start features like a well-curated software selector.
Red Hat's business model is that they ship a defined set of components and patch those components as needed for years without breaking compatibility.
Red Hat explicitly will not ship a component unless they can build it from source and update it, and have confidence that they can continue to do so for the life of the OS version.
That's what being a responsible "enterprise" operating system vendor means.
I installed Podman 3.3.1 on a Mac yesterday from Homebrew and volume mounts were definitely an issue, but it otherwise worked as advertised on the command-line.
The bugs cited in the article are already fixed in the code, so I don't hold those against it.
I did have an issue that was my fault, encountered one genuine bug, and was disappointed to find that there's some work to be done before third-party tools can use it as a Docker replacement:
I agree that Podman is not yet a complete replacement for Docker on macOS, but the experiment was successful enough for me that I intend to try Podman instead of Docker on Linux servers.
This really should be the term for projects that are perpetually releasing 0.x versions.
Maintainers are free to release their software under whatever terms that they wish, but if you actively encourage people to use your software and do not want to maintain backwards compatibility, then IMO, you should be very honest about that.
No questions, but a huge "thank you". I have not been this delighted with a tool since discovering Git. Once the little initial learning is done, it's so fast, powerful and easy to hand that it already feels like an indispensible part of my toolkit, after just a few days.
The tone and varied assortment of alleged issues makes me feel like he started by deciding that Flatpak was bad, and then found whatever he could to support his view.
"solutions journalism" is an really interesting effort to adapt journalism to current realities in a positive way.
"It investigates and explains, in a critical and clear-eyed way, examples of people working toward solutions. It focuses not just on what may be working, but how and why it appears to be working, or alternatively, why it may be stumbling. Using the best available evidence, it delves deep into the how-to’s of problem solving, often structuring stories as puzzles or mysteries that investigate questions like: What models are having success reducing the dropout rate in public schools? How do they actually work? What are they doing differently than others that’s resulting in a better outcome?"
Yes, for me the sandboxing is not the immediate benefit.
The instant value is providing channels for developers to ship apps to their users without either side having to mandate the OS that the other uses. Right now, even well-funded projects like Visual Studio Code have to pick and choose which Linux distributions and versions that they package for.
They don't provide packages to the main repositories for Linux distributions, partly because the release cycles are so wildly different. I don't want Debian stable to ship a completely new base system every few weeks, but the release cycle of my Web browser is a new version every six weeks.
In the ideal Flatpak world, I can run Solus or whatever distribution I choose, and the app developers that I rely on can not care about distribution market share, and just target Flatpak runtimes.
The challenge is going to be to ensure that Flatpak repositories and the Canonical App Store (the server end of snap) enforce good enough legal and security checks once vendors have started using them.