3 ms·
I'm not sure "Google engineers use it" is a very good counter argument. They have a very high tolerance for complexity and like most large corporations what act
by katzinsky 2y ago
I'm not sure "Google engineers use it" is a very good counter argument. They have a very high tolerance for complexity and like most large corporations what actually gets built and used tends to be driven more by internal politics than technical merit.
- eggnet 2y agoGoogle would maintain a kernel patch or upstream a patch if that was the right choice for a given problem.
- katzinsky 2y agoThat's really begging the question. I don't believe they would as they have consistently over engineered solutions in the past.
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago> Google would maintain a kernel patch I look forward to seeing that patch on Google Graveyard in a couple years' time.
- knorker 2y agoI don't mean it as a counter argument, or I don't think the way you mean it, at least. You may not use it at your smaller scale. But there are millions of machines out there that do use it, and the alternative for the same functionality is much worse. I bet you never use SCTP sockets either. eBPF is used much more than SCTP. And its users "fund" its development, so it's not a burden to those who don't use it. But are you sure your systems don't use it? Run "bpftool prog" to see. Whatever you see there someone thought was better than the alternative.