- sweats while nervously trying not to look at his home lab server rack in the office closet *
chihuamaranian
joined 1 month ago
"Customers who bought this also bought: VOID"
Personally, I don't mind the "I asked AI and it said..." Because I can choose to ignore anything that follows.
Yes, I can judge the sender. But consent is still in my hands.
Otherwise, I largely agree with the article on its points, and also appreciate it raising the overall topic of etiquette given a new technology.
Like the shift to smart phones, this changes the social landscape.
Ugh, have my upvote.
You gave me second hand embarrassment because this was (admittedly an embellished version of) me during my undergraduate.
Im not the one you replied to, but I wish I had this experience.
I have a k3s install on my homelab, and every helm chart I come across has some new set of assumptions about my cluster baked in and there are often at least one misconception breaking the ability to simply use the helm chart as-is.
Whether its storage container classes, some default ingress config, or something else entirely, I find that the best case is that I write so much yaml into the helm chart I might as well have written the entire thing myself, or it straight up doesn't work (and I then write custom yaml myself anyway)
However, I have enough applications I've converted from app specific installation guides (either assuming bare metal or docker compose) that I've extracted patterns that work for my cluster into a basic template I use.
I clone the template, change the app name, add/delete a few parts as needed for the app, and I commit a copy of it into my argoCD directory that deploys out to the cluster.
Its declarative, and that counts for a lot. But its not very encapsulated.
I dunno, maybe I'm just using it wrong. I'm self taught and this isn't part of my day job. But I haven't experienced helm as "just works" at all.
The FSF explanation of why they dislike Anubis could just as easily apply to the process of decrypting TLS/HTTPS. You know, something uncontroversial that every computer is expected to do when they want to communicate securely.
I don't fundamentally see the difference between "The computer does math to ensure end-to-end privacy" and "The computer does math to mitigate DDoS attempts on the server". Either way, without such protections the client/server relationship is lacking crucial fundamentals that many interactions depend on.
Your response is short and quippy in a way that might be read as un-serious or dismissive, but its absolutely correct.
The users come first. The software is a tool and has no inherent "needs".
Your average user likely agrees with the statement " my device sending my data to big tech, and being cluttered with ads isn't nice", but they lack the time, knowledge, and interest to fix it.
Once installed, Linux (on supported hardware) is (to my best understanding and experience) no harder or easier than windows or Mac for most things.
I understand my tech expertise might give be blinders on the accuracy of that statement, but I have witnessed enough similar sentiment to begin believing it.
The challenge is getting over the installation hurdle, and putting users in the same mindset Mac users already instinctively have: "the instructions you find online might not apply to you because you are not in the majority".
Preinstalled by OEM is it. The final and ultimate hurdle to gain a loooot of traction.