Live data from Hacker News

Samsung Acquires Joyent

joyent.com

221–230 of 256 posts

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#221
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you build a web app and it gets popular. It needs one load balancer, 5 app servers, at least two database nodes for replication, a redis cluster for caching and queuing, an elasticsearch cluster for full text search, and a cluster of job worker servers to do async stuff like processing images, etc. In the ancient past, like when I'm from, you'd write up a few different bash scripts to help you provision each serv…

Wau thanks, that is an excellent explanation. I appreciate that it start with things I know and understand ("so you build a web app"/"bash scripts"/"puppet") and builds on that explaining what problems each consecutive steps /layer of abstraction/ solves. Now I wonder.. how many projects actually needs these kind of solution when even StackOverflow can do without it (they are in the range of few servers)? I would ima…

Containerization on it's own can have benefits even in smaller deployments - separating your different server concerns to the bare minimum can be very useful.

There's also other aspects, like being able to spin up the newest PostgreSQL within minutes, and when you're done you rm the container and image and have no trace and/or side effects.

There's some pretty useful multi-container configurations out there too, like a dockerized gitlab environment: https://github.com/sameersbn/docker-gitlab

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#222

In case anyone's curious, I blogged about the backstory of the acquisition.[1] tl;dr: We at Joyent are elated, and we believe that this will be a huge win for our customers, for our technologies and for the communities that they serve! [1] https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent-a-ctos-p...

[deleted]

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#223
post #74

Hey, maybe Joyent can finally afford to refund the people who supported it when it was textdrive and then went back on their word! Snarky I know but I'm still bitter about how it was all handled..

[deleted]

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#225
As a Korean American who also has worked at Samsung headquarters, I think it's more of bad news than good news, no matter how Joyent wants to spin it.

Its corporate culture only allows the most cunning, politically savvy person to stay alive and move up the rank, and thus most executives (all if I limit it to small sample of executives I've personally met) fit that model.

And shit literally flows downwards, where goals/promises set by them would be pushed downwards and engineers have to take the burden.

It doesn't help that Korean society is very hierarchal and based on Confucius principles, where you don't usually challenge older persons and/or someone higher in the rank. This is one example that describes serious problem - http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/asiana-airlines-crash-a-cockp....

For those of you who are intrigued and have time, I suggest watching Misaeng with English subtitles (https://www.viki.com/tv/20812c-incomplete-life). Samsung isn't as bad, but the same hierarchy, verbal abuse, social dynamics, and strict rules on paper format exist.

The best outcome would be if they leave Joyent's management and culture alone. But I doubt it.

I also have the first-hand experience of their applying the same "consumer electronics" mentality to completely different business which required high-touch sales.

There is no denying success of Samsung - multi-billion, international corporation. However, Samsung is only good at generating quality hardware products at mass scale. There have not been success in any sort of software and services. Perhaps they are trying to expand beyond their strengths, and I applaud that effort and they actually do need it, since it's only matter of time Chinese companies will catch up and produce as quality products as Samsung, as Samsung did to Sony. I hope it bears fruits. I hope they can allow Joyent to succeed and thrive, and learn from that.

I will see what happens next few years.

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#226
post #155

Cloud orchestration, Container Orchestration, Kubernetes... I think I am getting old and starting to understand how my parents feel about technology. I am developer, but mostly work on desktop apps, or embedded devices or lataly on some MVC applications. But reading things like "A Container-Native Stack for Modern Applications and Operations Increase development velocity while simplifying operations." I have no idea…

So, you build a web app and it gets popular. It needs one load balancer, 5 app servers, at least two database nodes for replication, a redis cluster for caching and queuing, an elasticsearch cluster for full text search, and a cluster of job worker servers to do async stuff like processing images, etc. In the ancient past, like when I'm from, you'd write up a few different bash scripts to help you provision each serv…

^^^THIS is an absolutely great comment. I realise this isn't the major thrust of it, but it's the single best description of what containerisation is, and what problem it solves, that I've ever seen.

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#229
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there. Not proprietary software? Not "open source" licenses that don't allow modification (which is also proprietary)? The GPL? The thing that gave us free software in the modern world? Well, that's certainly one opinon. > On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. The CDDL has a provision that if any part i…

> The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective. No, that's a pretty standard severability clause that helps the user. It means that if o…

> > The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective.

> No, that's a pretty standard severability clause that helps the user. It means that if one section of the CDDL is found invalid, users can still use the software. The GPL on the other hand, by refusing to have a severability clause, means that if any part of the GPL, no matter how inconsequential, is found invalid, the entire license is null and void and no one can use it. That intentional omission makes the GPL a much more user-hostile license than it should be.

The GPL's severability clause says that the section is invalid, not the whole license. But the CDDL allows for the license to be changed after the fact.

Re: Samsung Acquires Joyent

#230
post #170
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there. Not proprietary software? Not "open source" licenses that don't allow modification (which is also proprietary)? The GPL? The thing that gave us free software in the modern world? Well, that's certainly one opinon. > On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. The CDDL has a provision that if any part i…

>What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original. This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork. When BSD/MIT/(other permissively licensed code) is used, modified, and re-licensed to GPL, the permissive project can't take those improvements without also re-licensing. The CDDL indeed save…

> >What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original.

> This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork.

... Who is it worse for? First of all, that almost never happens. But for users, there's no difference (if anything it's an improvement because they now have better protection of their freedom) and the original developers can just ignore the fork or merge the code and change license (which isn't possible with a proprietary fork).

> The CDDL indeed saved illumos from being cannibalized and disappearing as a community. Had its features been easily ported to Linux without a licencing problem, the project would probably not have survived, simply due to the fact that there would have been few reasons to stick with it.

I think that's a very irrational fear. GNU/Linux took plenty of BSD code and BSD still exists, many different projects take ideas from each other -- it's what's called "collaboration".

> I won't go so far as the grandparent post here, but I'm one of those developers that couldn't give half a care about "user freedom".

It's disappointing that you don't want to actually make the world a better place (not in the standard bullshit silicon valley sense) by giving people freedom.

Post reply on HN