101–110 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it represents a loose consensus mechanism, as I explained. That's fine for marketing, but not technical rebuttal to a claim.
Using an account that I share with other people in the same team is not the same as 'marketing'. I am sorry if this somehow offends, but think of the handle as just one poster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thankfully, they are all discussed in the linked article.
I read the article: if they are, that is quite unclear to me. Possible answers that are discussed are only 'some sort of IP encapsulation', which is vague and GRE, which is just a single solution. He doesn't seem to disapprove of VXlan, so probably something was missing in 'IP encapsulation and GRE'. Was 'all problems solved decades ago' merely hyperbole or is there actually something to it?
I'm not sure I even understand the problem that weave and Docker bridging/NAT solves for real world cases. IP allocation for containers isn't a problem for most networks, is it? Certainly AWS can give you up to 8 IPs per instance, and every datacenter I've ever worked in can give you even more, if you ask. All you have to do is spin up additional virtual NICs with virtual MACs and use DHCP to assign IP addresses to t…
Docker was designed to be very easy to get started on your laptop with one IP address and it looks like some people are getting stuck in that model. I agree that if you are running on AWS VPC or some other overlay you should just use VPC for container networking. You shouldn't overlay your overlay. But there isn't any tooling that I know of to do that.
Even if one runs a Docker bridge in his development VM, that doesn't one must do so in production as well.
Are we in this mess because production engineers don't understand networking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'good enough' attitude does not lead to quality in the long run. It drags the entire system down. (C, PHP, Windows, etc).
Except that people who can recognize when something is indeed "good enough" and then move on to the next most important thing are ultimately the only people who get things done and accomplish goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To put it simply, if @monadic were receptive to @lclarkmichalek's ideas, why did he end the conversation? But let's look at the Tweet in question: "@lclarkmichalek @weavenetwork please, if it is so simple and robust you are very welcome to contribute a patch." 1. He says "please", which in this case is sarcastic. 2. Then he says "if it is so simple," which is a dismissive way of saying "you think that it's simple, bu…
> To put it simply, if @monadic were receptive to @lclarkmichalek's ideas, why did he end the conversation? It was actually @lclarkmichalek who ended the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This "our project is open source, feel free to submit a patch" dismissal is so passive aggressive. If you mean "fuck you," then just say "fuck you." That said, you shouldn't be saying "fuck you" in the first place: it's rude, it contributes to bad vibes in the OSS community, and it hurts you more than anybody. Try instead something like: "I'm having trouble understanding your argument, do you mind explaining in more…
I find your attitude the ruder. Users of paid products have the right to complain about stuff like that; it's literally what they paid for. Users of open source projects have no such right: if you know what to do, why not make yourself useful instead of bitching out someone who's volunteered their free time to make your life easier? I have very little patience with armchair pundits myself, if you submit a pull reques…
Furthermore, the conversation at issue was initiated by a community member asking why Weave's authors chose to implement their own security mechanism. The point of this kind of question is to assess whether the authors had good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all behind a questionable decision. This helps determine whether the effort to resolve the issue would be well-spent. If the authors aren't convinced that other solutions would be superior, they may be unwilling to accept a contribution, and you are potentially wasting your time producing a patch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thankfully, they are all discussed in the linked article.
I read the article: if they are, that is quite unclear to me. Possible answers that are discussed are only 'some sort of IP encapsulation', which is vague and GRE, which is just a single solution. He doesn't seem to disapprove of VXlan, so probably something was missing in 'IP encapsulation and GRE'. Was 'all problems solved decades ago' merely hyperbole or is there actually something to it?
In IIS this is done with Bindings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I feel a little guilty after writing this article, as the speed of the implementation is simply a detail. However, I feel no such guilt in condemning Weave's security. This is a conversation I had with @weave a while ago about their encryption https://twitter.com/lclarkmichalek/status/544882194456776705
This "our project is open source, feel free to submit a patch" dismissal is so passive aggressive. If you mean "fuck you," then just say "fuck you." That said, you shouldn't be saying "fuck you" in the first place: it's rude, it contributes to bad vibes in the OSS community, and it hurts you more than anybody. Try instead something like: "I'm having trouble understanding your argument, do you mind explaining in more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To put it simply, if @monadic were receptive to @lclarkmichalek's ideas, why did he end the conversation? But let's look at the Tweet in question: "@lclarkmichalek @weavenetwork please, if it is so simple and robust you are very welcome to contribute a patch." 1. He says "please", which in this case is sarcastic. 2. Then he says "if it is so simple," which is a dismissive way of saying "you think that it's simple, bu…
I'm sorry but I find your interpretations of 1-4 completely uncharitable and unreasonable.
Just admit that you (if you're the one who wrote that response; it's not exactly clear who's who in this discussion...) were being a bit of a twit and move on. We all do it; I do it, the girl next door does it, my grandma even does it and she's the nicest person I know. There's no shame in being honest about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This "our project is open source, feel free to submit a patch" dismissal is so passive aggressive. If you mean "fuck you," then just say "fuck you." That said, you shouldn't be saying "fuck you" in the first place: it's rude, it contributes to bad vibes in the OSS community, and it hurts you more than anybody. Try instead something like: "I'm having trouble understanding your argument, do you mind explaining in more…
I find your attitude the ruder. Users of paid products have the right to complain about stuff like that; it's literally what they paid for. Users of open source projects have no such right: if you know what to do, why not make yourself useful instead of bitching out someone who's volunteered their free time to make your life easier? I have very little patience with armchair pundits myself, if you submit a pull reques…
This isn't to say that there's never room for improvement in the crypto space - I personally disagree with the assertion that rolling one's own crypto is inherently bad in all cases, and instead believe that we need a maximum of innovation attempts now so that they can be evaluated and audited and identified as useful - but unless you're actually fixing a problem, Not-Invented-Here syndrome is dangerous and a waste of time better spent elsewhere.