Well for one thing the first is not a great business model compared to the second. (And I suspect that's the primary consideration)
But, you probably mean from a user's privacy perspective- and then I'd still say the answer is yes. The companies buying ad exposure in the second can't easily re-sell your data to another third party, and they can be constrained from what they learn about you. The first example basically means you have to trust the whole world and the second example means you have to trust the primary data holder (a lot).
Would the S3 inventory help here? That would allow you to get the list of all files (albeit on a delay similar to the lifecycle rule approach), which you could process offline to generate the DELETEs.
S3 inventory would cost $0.0025 per million objects listed [1], while LIST requests are $0.005 per thousand requests and each LIST request can return up to 1000 objects, making them $0.005 per million objects listed. For the "Infrequent Access" storage tier, LISTs cost double that.
So S3 inventory would be half price compared to LIST (or quarter price in IA storage class), but that's still small comfort if you're staring down the barrel of a bucket containing a large number of objects.
What a confusing mess. If LIST pricing is separate then it's strange to include it in the column of a table of storage-class pricing like that. But I agree that's what that statement seems to be saying.
Either way, the takeaway is that using LIST or a bucket inventory, will still be O(N) cost and there's only a factor-of-2-ish difference between the two.
Then again, a billion objects is $5 territory to delete, and if you have a trillion objects to delete and no pre-existing listing to go off of, then odds are you can stomach the $5000 hit more easily than you could stomach the staff time spent trying to reduce that cost!
I'd be interested in seeing what the performance difference between the NGINX SSI and <?php echo $_ENV['SIGN_OUT_URL'] ?> is. Just because PHP _can_ be slow, doesn't mean it _must_ be slow.
I took an ethics class in college taught by the computer science department. It definitely wasn't an ethical indoctrination, as much of "here is what ethics is, here are the basic frameworks, and here's why it matters to programming."
If you want the ability to use a third party store, why not buy an Android phone instead? Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the market as affirmed by the outcome in TFA. Users choose to buy Apple devices for a reason.
Because I already have invested thousands dollars into the iOS ecosystem? What you're saying is something like "You don't like the only internet provider here? Why don't you move to other cities!". Life is not that simple, unfortunately.
Unless you invested those thousands of dollars before the App Store and most of the relevant modern policies existed, I don't think your complaint is reasonable. This is nothing like moving to another city or country. It's a smartphone, which people tend to replace at least every 3 years, and I don't think Apple has significantly changed any of its policies in the last 3 years.
> Unless you invested those thousands of dollars before the App Store and most of the relevant modern policies existed
Oh, so every iOS users need to understand all the app review policy and TOS before spending their money on iOS ecosystem. Otherwise they cannot complain about what Apple's doing? Customer protection and antitrust regulation don't work like that.
> This is nothing like moving to another city or country.
Why? The main reason of using alternative store is mainly having cheaper apps and contents, usually several cents per each. And you're suggesting that I need to spend ~$1000 upfront cost as well as giving up all the apps and contents that I purchased in iOS? I think it's pretty similar to "moving to other cities", which illustrates how classic monopolist lock-in strategy works.
It's from RedHat/IBM. They can give this stuff away to developers because they just want to sell OpenShift to deep pocketed Enterprise customers. And really podman is strategically a defensive move so their Enterprise offerings aren't stuck depending on Docker Inc.
Contrast with Docker, whose business is explicitly focused on "developer tools."
So podman is funded ultimately by enterprises which is OK, but now docker wants to fund their products by enterprises that's a problem for some reason...
I could understand this if they were turning the thumbscrews on individuals but all this talk of switching sounds petty and silly and will probably be false economy
I suspect it's the bait-and-switch approach that annoys people. Podman (and RHEL, through community rebuilds) is free to use even for enterprises; you don't pay for the software itself, you pay for support.
> I could understand this if they were turning the thumbscrews on individuals but all this talk of switching sounds petty and silly and will probably be false economy
Well, with respect to this post in particular, I don't think Podman is even a "real" replacement for Docker Desktop. RHAT has been pushing it for quite a while, and although they're dogfooding it with their own k8s and Linux distros it's had less uptake outside of Big Blue (the linked article, prominently featured on their web page, is already out of date - not a good look). As many rough edges as my Mac using colleagues described encountering with Docker Desktop, they will see even more if they try to use Podman, so it strikes me as a poor choice here.
Regardless, I think the value proposition of Docker Desktop is questionable. The main thing it does is manage some VM plumbing so you don't have to think about it. Is that worth... much? Even anything at all? In a past life many of us used Vagrant, and it's not like it's that hard to do this stuff yourself.
So really, Docker Desktop is competing on multiple fronts, all of which are open source or at least free. There's old school, with Vagrant/BYO VM, there's "docker alternatives" like podman, and there's the k8s-in-a-box like Rancher Desktop or Minikube (which can expose a docker socket so you can work with docker directly as well).
I'm a Linux user so I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I lived in a world where I needed "run a VM to get a docker for development" it's not obvious to me that Docker Desktop is the best choice at any price point, and the cost is just one more point against it.
There was already some bad feeling towards Docker, because they historically haven't fixed bugs or added requested features.
When Docker started asking for money for their desktop offering, it prompted people to start wondering just how valuable that offering was, and to compare it against competing applications. Also, a lot of developers I've spoken to just don't see the point of the Docker Desktop on Mac; they just want something that sits in the background and works without bugging them to update every other week.
Podman fits the use cases people have, it's open source and has more useful features than Docker Desktop currently has.
You're correct in that this sounds petty and silly, but there's history and context to this widespread move to ditch Docker.
That’s how Red Hat operates mostly. Time will tell if IBM royally messes this up but Red Hat is an upstream first company. If they need something they will put up the developer time but it will be a community project first that they repackage for RHEL.
Red Hat’s secret sauce so to speak is the stupid amount of ongoing work it takes to actually maintain a distro, not the software itself.
Sounds like the NY Post is purposefully conflating a lab-leak with a researcher accidentally getting infected in the field.
"A lab employee infected in the field while collecting samples in a bat cave — such a scenario belongs both as a lab-leak hypothesis and as our first hypothesis of direct infection from bat to human. We’ve seen that hypothesis as a likely hypothesis," Ben Embarek said.
> Clear considered selling user data in the past, but instead uses that data to promote relevant ads to users.
Is there really a functional difference between these two?