yebyen

60 ms·

631.
by yebyen 8y ago
I found this post only after I wrote that, ha: https://content.pivotal.io/blog/were-looking-forward-to-welc...
632.
by yebyen 8y ago
Congratulations, and welcome to the family, I guess! It's hard for me to connect the dots and harder for others probably that don't know you, but Pivotal is another VMWare brand AIUI (and I know you are a Pivotal Labs employee, bi
633.
by yebyen 8y ago
There are certainly more than just those two engineers that work at Heptio. Surely some of them will also continue the work that Heptio still has in front of it? I don't have any insider knowledge about this besides what was in the a
634.
by yebyen 8y ago
Right, what it does potentially solve (comparing GPL to AGPL) is this: Amazon takes your work and solves the "service layer" story, but having never distributed any binaries, they are not obligated to share their modifications in
635.
by yebyen 8y ago
So, the model that AGPL was designed to combat, right? Under the AGPL, Amazon would be free to do that, as long as they released the code for their managed deployment systems. (This doesn't get you any money, but it saves you from the
636.
by yebyen 8y ago
Fusion 360 is not in any way open code though, right? I'm thinking of any _open_ product that says you have to pay once your derivative product goes commercial, even if it's also open. That would be decidedly non-free in the sens
637.
by yebyen 8y ago
> Hey, you can use this for free if you don't make any money, but we want 10% if you're using this in a paid product Is that an actual license? Because that's not what I've seen most often recently, at all. An honest
638.
by yebyen 8y ago
Interesting, I would say that it's fortunate nobody can buy Kubernetes (because it only is composed of acceptance and compliance with a conformance suite, there are dozens of separate implementations and they may all be Kubernetes.) To
639.
by yebyen 8y ago
> That said, Azure Stack (and Azure) already have strong Docker support, without an acquisition to date. Maybe I'm confused about what you mean by "Azure Stack", but there was most certainly an acquisition[1] related to Az
640.
by yebyen 8y ago
No, I'm with CydeWeys, it's not entitled we're just glad we don't work for you! :) Just because your customers don't come from these countries, doesn't mean your vendors (and source code for important infrastru
641.
by yebyen 8y ago
Hey buddy, we're just having a discussion on the internet about our pet peeves, there's nothing personal about it. You are perfectly justified in _not using_ the domains, because there are people like you out there who will block
642.
by yebyen 8y ago
> Why do I care about what's appropriate for other orgs? You're here discussing your org, and I'm here discussing my org. Why are you posting on a public forum if you don't care about other people's problems ;)
643.
by yebyen 8y ago
No I'm not blaming you, I'm recognizing that InfoSec has more important fish to fry, than unblocking my pet projects that were a casualty of this garbage policy. Maybe it's appropriate for your company, but it is not appropri
644.
by yebyen 8y ago
I've been asking for months. They also have blocked an entire /24 with some perfectly safe documentation on it, our InfoSec department says it came from our threat vendor, and our threat vendor says it came from one of our custom
645.
by yebyen 8y ago
What if I'm a guy who can't access the QA/staging version of his favorite pet open-source web project because they decided to host it at "[sitename].review"? It doesn't technically prevent anyone from visiting
646.
by yebyen 8y ago
More likely they make you pay to license the "new standard". (You could say you're paying to have your implementation certified, I don't know how they will do that. I think that Google won't want to be permanently
647.
by yebyen 8y ago
I may not have made myself clear, I'm already convinced that either vision of Shame-Driven Development was a bad idea. That being said, thanks for your thoughtful reply!
648.
by yebyen 8y ago
I honestly have long agreed with your premise, but I have to say I can't bring myself to agree with your whole statement. I see it more often each passing year, that someone who behaves a certain way is "charitably" accused
649.
by yebyen 8y ago
> a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind. That is bluntly unkind. You've taken an opinion and phrased it as "a factual statement." The "fact" you&#x
650.
by yebyen 8y ago
OK. I'll be that guy. Is there nobody who is going to talk about Larry Cashdollar, the person who discovered this vulnerability and first reported it? I'm honestly not sure how I'd be more impressed; if you told me this man
651.
by yebyen 8y ago
I suspect the difference is that Google Docs and MS Office don't integrate seamlessly into your front-end product and provide your users with a collaborative editing experience. They would have to know they're using Docs or Offic
652.
by yebyen 8y ago
> It takes greater communication between the team in my experience. You can also, as a substitute for greater communication, establish a protocol around branch naming and follow it. What works for us is using the word "release"
653.
by yebyen 8y ago
Thanks! I meant to mention that --preserve-merges is not really for use with interactive rebase, and does not work at all with pull --rebase, but I was in a bit of a hurry. I did not know about rebase-merges! > The --rebase-merges mode
654.
by yebyen 8y ago
Take a look at `git rebase --preserve-merges` There are three ways to rebase that you should learn, and I only have 5 minutes, but I'll try to sum them up quickly: rebase -i: This takes a single upstream (parent) commit as an argument
655.
by yebyen 8y ago
I don't know how you could prove whether anyone exploited this or not, unless you found a breach list posted on the open internet... even if you had the access logs: > This data is limited to static, optional Google+ Profile fields
656.
by yebyen 8y ago
Seems likely they actually didn't. Apparently the further down this comment thread you go, the more times this has already been mentioned. (I read the top comment in the thread having already understood this, and thus interpreted it
657.
by yebyen 8y ago
I think in this particular case, their policy statement in the sister article from Google blog indicates they couldn't really say that in this case. > We made Google+ with privacy in mind and therefore keep this API’s log data for o
658.
by yebyen 8y ago
You and my father. I just logged into G+ for the first time in months (apparently not shuttered quite just yet...) ... and there are about five hundred political posts from him that I'm glad I didn't see, and six or ten cute bear
659.
by yebyen 8y ago
That is the answer I was looking for. And also shows what I know, as I just learned that SmartOS is not the same as OpenSolaris. (Thanks!) > I‘m against object oriented programming. I just went back and read your profile again. Just w
660.
by yebyen 8y ago
I apologise, I thought that was a fair question and civil... The missing context from another comment was: > ... amount of institutional inertia I've come up against while trying to get any part of our Development or Production stac

More ›