throwaway09223

8 ms·

31.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Well, there we differ. If employees can't be prevented from harassing other employees with open letters casting aspirations at each other then it would be impossible to operate a functioning company. It is undoubtedly a farce.
32.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Circulating a letter that levels accusations against the CEO for racism or other political wrongthink is not protected conduct. Come on, don't be ridiculous. The NLRB is operating a farce with this suit. They're used to companies
33.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
It's an accusation. It's incorrect. Let's wait and see what results from the litigation.
34.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
> It's not an equal playing field, hence why workers protections are important. That's why unemployment is important. None of these factors prevent someone from being let go without notice. Those points aren't germane to w
35.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
> discussing your working conditions while at work(and being critical of them) is protected. Discussing working conditions is unrelated to criticizing the CEO. > Going after the people who break the law is political now? They didn&#x2
36.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Certainly not. In a similar vein, the employees don't own their position at the company. Employment arrangements are made through mutual agreements. If the company says something an employee doesn't like, the employee is free to l
37.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
The point is that it offers absolutely no defense against an APT -- who can simply include a binary that won't match any known exploit pattern. It is not a meaningful technical barrier. It's the equivalent of storing a big table
38.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
AV doesn't detect the exploit mechanism -- that's not how it works. It's only pattern matching existing binaries. The difficulty level is "recompile with small changes and test that it doesn't match" not "
39.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
I mean yeah, I would say that's one way to compromise those systems.
40.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Anti-virus software is utterly worthless in detecting previously-unknown rootkits. Not a factor. The typical attack vector for any system would be compromising the inbound software. This is really easy to do when people are downloading and
41.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
This could be an answer to an intent to violate any law. The counterpoint is that this doesn't actually work in practice.
42.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Quite the opposite - it's not only hard it's also unwise. Admitting that you know that your product may create legal liabilities is not a very smart thing to do.
43.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
There must be mountains of legal concerns which vary by jurisdiction. Both in terms of copyright / right of authorship as well as GDPR/data protection. Litigation is probably inescapable. I'm sure they want to be on solid foo
44.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
What is it atomic with respect to?
45.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
> "If the operations we are talking about are ordered, then this provides the atomicity that TFA is asking for." No, it doesn't. I think we're reaching the heart of the disagreement here - around what "atomic&quo
46.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
There are all kinds of cases where filesystems might issue an extraneous sync, but it is not atomic , merely ordered. You've switched from talking about one to talking about the other and they are not the same. This is the core of our
47.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
This is like saying sync() works. You can sync to durable storage at any point, yes. But you cannot do it in a semantically useful fashion. "I don't think anyone is talking about situations where B is being actively written to whi
48.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Not really. It's often all just shared memory via mmap. The files are never closed, and sometimes never operated on with read/write because they're just mapped. This behavior is common between (eg) both sqlite and mysql. (Pos
49.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Yeah, I get it. The issue is that filesystems don't work like you've assumed. I outlined why this idea cannot work here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38407472 Again, manipulating links has nothing to do wi
50.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
This is fundamentally not how unix filesystems work. No file data is written in the above scenario with rename(). Rename changes links - not files. Let me rewrite this for you using more correct language: Given a link to a file at path A ex
51.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Because it would accomplish nothing. What's the point? It's not more simple and there are no benefits WRT reliability. "I think this would be a benefit, because first you don't need userspace developers dig into the gory
52.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
It's the same for sqlite, postgres, mysql, or any other file. Syncing data to durable storage is totally unrelated to visibility guarantees between multiple threads or processes working within the same file (be it using write, mmap, wh
53.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Yes, but as I said above that doesn't make sense. The atomicity we're discussing here is with respect to time, and sequencing (not say size, like an atom). We say that rename() is atomic because you will either see file A or file
54.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
The latter. What do you think it means?
55.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
POSIX isn't underspecified here. rename() has no durability guarantees. That's the answer. "something that worked on FFS didn't work on ext4," As the article notes this is NOT durable on FFS. Early FFS (and early ex
56.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
The phrase "atomic across crashes" is meaningless. Atomicity deals with the running system state at the moment a system call executes. It has nothing to do with crashes (which are not atomic in and of themselves), or what bits act
57.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
Yeah, all filesystems are allowed to synchronize to disk as often as they want, in whatever way they want in /addition/ to what's specified. Filesystems can even make their own guarantees, above and beyond generalized specifi
58.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
It's pretty common for people with some experience to not understand filesystem nuance - there's quite a bit of it right here in the hn comment section. You'll note below I also corrected someone significantly more credential
59.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
I read a bit more and figured out why the article was written. In 2009, ext4 (and ONLY ext4) adopted this behavior: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.g... I don't
60.
by throwaway09223 3y ago
It's not, though, because fsync has no relation whatsoever to what other processes see. Durability is totally different from concurrency or multiprocess consistency. There are already guarantees about how we can order reads and writes

More ›