There are very real reasons to use ZFS instead of the oldschool Linux block device sandwich.
mdadm+luks+lvm still do not quite provide the same set of features that ZFS alone does even without encryption. Namely in-line compression, and data checksumming, not to mention free snapshots.
ZFS is quite mature, the feature discussed in the article is not. As others have pointed out this could have been avoided by running ZFS on top of luks and would have hardly sacrificed any functionality.
> mdadm+luks+lvm still do not quite provide the same set of features that ZFS alone does even without encryption. Namely in-line compression, and data checksumming, not to mention free snapshots.
Sure, but LUKS+ZFS provides all that too, and also encrypts everything (ZFS encryption, surprisingly, does not encrypt metadata).
As this article demonstrates, encryption really is an afterthought with ZFS. Just as ZFS rethought from first principles what storage requires and ended up making some great decisions, someone needs to rethink from first principles what secure storage requires.
It's a little weird to denounce the "block device sandwich" and then say that they should have used... a variation of the block device sandwich.
> There are very real reasons to use ZFS
I feel like, for the types of person GP is talking about, they likely don't really need to use ZFS, and luks+md+lvm would be just fine for them.
Like the GP, I have such a setup that's been in operation for 15-20 years now, with none of the original disks, probably 4 or 5 full disk swaps, starting out as a 4x 500GB array, which is now a 5x 8TB array. It's worked perfectly fine, and the only times I've come close to losing data is when I have done something truly stupid (that is, directly and intentionally ignored the advice of many online tutorials)... and even then, I still have all my data.
Honestly the only thing missing that I wish I had was data checksumming, and even then... eh.
Run enough disks long enough and you'll find one that starts returning garbage while telling the OS everything is ok.
First time I had it happen was on a hardware raid device and a company lost 2 and a half days worth of data as any backups from when it started had bad data.
The next time I had it happen is using ZFS and we saw a flood of checksum errors and replaced the disk. Even after that SMART thought it was perfectly fine and you could send commands to it, you just got garbage back.
It's funny how polarizing this is. Seemingly based on whatever system you grew up on, or are most accustomed to.
I find Mac's window management to be something of a joke, and can't imagine why anyone would want to replicate it. I do see the value of the global menu but everything else feels wholly unintuitive to me.
I can't stand that cmd+tab takes you to the last app, not the last window, and raises all that apps other windows as well. I literally never want that.
The way Mac window management works, ironically, is that you manage windows as little as possible. You don't even go as far as to maximize or tile most of them. Instead, windows are sized to fit their content and sit where they may, overlapping each other and allowing the most relevant portions of each to peek through, like the digital analogue of a desk with a pile of odd-sized papers. Windows are foregrounded by either clicking a bit that's peeking out or triggering Exposé and choosing a thumbnail.
It's a very different mindset than that of a Windows-like desktop or tiling window manager.
The parent's complaint about non-native docker is not solved by colima. It's not bloat from the desktop app it's the fact that you have to run a VM to run any sort of container runtime on a mac.
Took me a bit to find this, but you can click on a line number in multi-buffer to open that file at that location. I think their default assumption is for you to not use the mouse much.
If you're using vim mode g+[space] will open the file where your cursor is. I think it's alt+return in normal mode but either way there's a shortcut hint on the right side of the header for the file your cursor is currently in.
Each person on my team has a day of the week they own, and then we have a rotation for weekends, and negotiate holiday/pto trades. I guess it really only maps correctly for a 5 person team.
We previously had a week long rotation, and some folks were initially skeptical of the idea to change, saying they were worried they'd feel like they were "oncall all the time". But, they agreed to try it for a month. That was a bit over a year ago now, and no complaints.
I think it ends up being a lower stress configuration, because it just becomes part of your normal expected work-week routine, and generally isn't as mentally draining.
It does make end of year PTO/holiday time a bit more complex to work out, but so far my team has been okay with that tradeoff.
how do you work around bank holidays? Which in some countries are almost always on the same weekday? Does the person who has Mondays just deal with not having a longer weekend like everyone else?
What about the person who has Friday? Do they never go out on a Friday evening?
Sounds a nice idea in theory but not all week days are equally inconvenient.
That seems completely backwards?
Debit interchange fees are usually lower aren't they? and if you run it with a pin as a debit there's almost no charge for the vendor.
Definitely weird, as everything I know about the incentives for that go in the other direction for a vendor.
According to the discussion in the thread, you're correct. Also, it was a $10 giftcard for .. uber eats. Where you can't get anything for less than ten bucks.
These are deeply insulting. My company sometimes sends out $10 cards for DoorDash. To actually get something I would have to add at least another $10 myself.
I wonder if Uber Eats and DoorDash give these out for free to companies as promotion. I bet most people who use the cards spend another $20 or more.
I guess it's easier to buy X number of gift cards and allow that company to deal with the individuals rather than paying each customer $10 individually.
Also, does the IT manager get that giftcard? Do they share it with the rest of the team? Does the CTO get the card and shares it with the rest of the C-suite. What's the proper way of handling that other than reject with a harsh laugh in their face at the offer?
ZFS is quite mature, the feature discussed in the article is not. As others have pointed out this could have been avoided by running ZFS on top of luks and would have hardly sacrificed any functionality.