Regarding Uber, I agree that their price transparency is very much appreciated.
However it's not rare to find bad drivers on Uber. On Christmas this year I took an uber from the airport, the driver had supposely arrived but he was nowhere to be seen. We called each other and I could hardly hear anything. After wasting about 30 minutes (and battery almost depleted) we finally found each other. It turns out he didn't know how to speak English or the local language. He had two phones, one he used to call a colleage who could (barely) translate english for him, the other phone he used to talk to clients, and both phones were placed mic-to-speaker to bridge the calls. What about the extra time that the driver wasted? I was billed for it and I had no way to dispute it. I could only report this behavior in a review to a driver that didn't seem to be him (was the main driver subletting his account?).
I had very bad drivers on Uber, but I do give them low ratings, complain to Uber, ask for refunds or refuse to go depending on the level of bad. I had a driver a few months ago on saturday morning: 'don't get in on the left, someone vomited out of the window last night'. Yeah that's shit and can happen but it's the next day, you went out without cleaning. Didn't get in and complained. Come on people.
Generally I still had much nicer uber drivers than taxi drivers. What do I do if a normal cabby is a shit? With uber I get to vote 1 star AND I will get my money back the same day. That's not happening here with the normal taxis: you can complain, fill forms, and maybe, after you expire of old age, your family will enjoy that 10 euros refund.
I agree with you, uber is a good 1st option. In my previous comment I wanted to remark that it's not flawless, but I think we are on the same page about this as well. It pays off to keep alternatives in mind when things seem to go sideways (request another driver, use a taxi, be more vocal ...). Also travelling makes me tired and then I just let issues slide
I disagree. Mercedes used to be well known for reliable and easy to repair cars among the general public, or at least that was true among the people I know. E.g. there are stories about old mercedes with millions of kilometers, some of them in remote places and owned by workers (e.g. taxi drivers). Of course, this is no longer the case and newer models are very disappointing in this regard.
Also the right of repair is orthogonal to the concept of luxury. What is relevant here is whether mercedes is leveraging their market power during the car's design phase to hinder competition in after-sales services and profit from that. Those decisions could have negative externalities for consumers and the environment.
I totally see the advantages of immutable distros, particularly in a professional or cloud environment. Even as a hobbist, I feel tempted to use immutable distros if it were not because of:
- Learning. Figuring out how to migrate a setup even to the most mainstream-like immutable distro (fedora silverblue) can take a while, and to niche distros like talos even longer. However, a k8s-friendly setup with low customization requirements would help to speed up the migration (but it requires more powerful machines).
- Long term support. Regular distros like Debian and AlmaLinux offer free 5 and 10 year support cycles which means maintenance can be done every 1 or 2 years. On the other hand, immutable distros would require much more frequent maintenance, once every 6 months. A weekend every 6 months is a sizeable part of my time budget for hobbies.
One aspect in which immutables distros have improved a lot is in resource usage. They used to require significantly more disk space and have slightly higher minimum requirements than regular distros, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
> Long term support. Regular distros like Debian and AlmaLinux offer free 5 and 10 year support cycles which means maintenance can be done every 1 or 2 years.
What's maintenance in the context if immutable distros? Running "ujust upgrade"? That's done automatically in the background for my Aurora installation.
Yes, system upgrade is the main maintenance task. With some monitoring, security updates can be automated but after system upgrades I must check manually that everything is working. E.g. incompatible configuration files, changes in 3rd party repos, errors that surface one week after the upgrade, ...
There are also smaller maintenance tasks that are tipically ad-hoc solutions to unsolved problems or responses to monitoring alerts. One of this ad-hoc routines was checking that logs do not grow too large, which used to be a problem in my first systemd centos, although not anymore.
PD: thanks for the bluefin read, it made me discover devpod/devcontainer as an interesting alternative to compose files
Intuitively, this seems opposite, because you could obviously 'mutate' (or mutilate) your Debian system until the updates break. Isolating user changes should make updates easier, not harder. Also MacOS uses a 'sealed' system volume and updates are like butter there.
> Also MacOS uses a 'sealed' system volume and updates are like butter there.
Smooth as in "no data loss", sure. Smooth as in "supports the software I buy and use for long periods of time" is most certainly not true, even despite half the software for Mac being statically linked. Windows and Linux arguably do better at keeping system functionality across updates even with their fundamental disadvantages.
While true, this isn't even slightly related to the os being "immutable" or not. Immutable-OS upgrades can and do break things - that's the reason it's even a thing. They just give you a reliable rollback.
I found Fedora is terrible at documentation, or at least around rpm-ostree they are. It has made learning more of a struggle than necessary. I think the basics are that there is some sort of container image builder that can work from a manifest, then some way to create a distro out of a container image. All of the content I can find is fragmented across many sites and not complete enough to actually use. Extremely frustrating.
Fair call. In any case I think you'll find things moving towards bootc and away from having to know rpm-ostree at all. The bootc documentation for fedora is pretty good and the Universal Blue project has built some awesome distros that use bootc.
I dont see how it helps in a cloud environment? With correct permissions users aren't making changes to live servers or even logging in and if you want to roll out upgrades you can do it with OS images already?
Exactly, and if it's immutable, you know they aren't. Not through SSH, and not through a vulnerability either. I assume there's something you can hash to determine prove that you haven't been hacked, as well.
In some aspects, I'd hope that there are potential benefits on the security side of things as well. Since the host FS is generally read only in these type of distros, there is the potential to make some security teams happy.
You’re missing the whole point of an immutable distro. If you have a hobby project on a regular distro, you run apt-get update or whatever, it installs 200 packages and half of them run scripts that do some script specific thing to your machine. If something goes wrong you just bought yourself a week’s worth of debugging to figure out how to roll back the state.
If you update using an immutable distro, you rebase back on to your previous deployment or adjust a pin and you’re done. Immutable distros save you tons of time handling system upgrades, and the best part is you can experimentally change to a beta or even alpha version of your distro without any fear at all.
> If something goes wrong you just bought yourself a week’s worth of debugging to figure out how to roll back the state.
But that basically doesn't happen between release upgrades, not unless you're doing something with third party repos at least.
> If you update using an immutable distro, you rebase back on to your previous deployment or adjust a pin and you’re done
I genuinely don't know, but can you do security updates without rebasing? Just keeping some working version pinned sounds like bad idea to me, and doesn't even save you time because you'll need it resolve that problem eventually anyways.
Many people install Nvidia drivers by using their shipped .run binary (which is a bad idea) and thus breaks when the kernel is updated to something higher than the DKMS module supports.
I am surprised this policy makes sense, but somehow it seems to be the case, since they have been doing since the 80s.
My concern is that, to produce a single antivenom dose, they need about 150 spiders, which are collected as grown up spiders or eggs. Telling regular citizens to try catch some spiders on their own puts them at risk. In case of something going south, the worst case is death and the best case is an antivenom dose consumed. So by promoting this campaign, the ARP organization assumes that the average person is a highly skilled spider catchers and benefits outweight risks.
Instead I would have expected that antivenom producers would breed the spiders in captivity. This would be a safer alternative for regular citizens. If they really need to catch live spiders in the wild, I would expect some kind of public service in which individuals place a call and then a professional comes to safely catch the spider. In absence of such a public service, my instinct tells me to kill the spiders in the fastest and most reliable way.
The manual mentions it includes EasyEUICC hash in an ARA-M slot, so it should work.
ARA-M does not apply to OpenEUICC; as a system app, it can work with any esim.
Timing may be the difference.
Apple may have trademarked "app" before popularizing it.
OpenAI may be trying to trademark GPT after it is already being generally used by non-OpenAI people.
However it's not rare to find bad drivers on Uber. On Christmas this year I took an uber from the airport, the driver had supposely arrived but he was nowhere to be seen. We called each other and I could hardly hear anything. After wasting about 30 minutes (and battery almost depleted) we finally found each other. It turns out he didn't know how to speak English or the local language. He had two phones, one he used to call a colleage who could (barely) translate english for him, the other phone he used to talk to clients, and both phones were placed mic-to-speaker to bridge the calls. What about the extra time that the driver wasted? I was billed for it and I had no way to dispute it. I could only report this behavior in a review to a driver that didn't seem to be him (was the main driver subletting his account?).