Why is it meaningless? It sounds like you disagree with it, so maybe you would like to discredit it's face value.
The "perpetual reposting" seems like a signal that it resonates with some people? Once again proving that it likely isn't meaningless (at least to everybody).
At the time of writing, Go was extremely overhyped on HN. I wanted to cool off the excitement a bit. These days everyone is aware of the points I made, but back then this was a refreshing take.
Agreed. As many pointed out when the 1.1.1.1 DNS service was introduced, it's an address that is often used (incorrectly) as an internal or temporary IP. Then all it takes is a slight mistake in your route redistribution and suddenly you can find yourself accidentally announcing the prefix to eBGP.
I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a semi-regular occurrence.
Hanlon's razor applies to a great degree. I have no doubt that there are a great many enterprise-type organizations that have been using 1.0.0.0/8 internally and cluelessly for a very long time.
Most public peering IX's have route servers which have "most" of the routes available on the exchange. Peer with that and you have almost all of the routes available on the exchange. Of course, some entities might not advertise everything to the route server, but most do in my experience.
> Most public peering IX's have route servers which have "most" of the routes available on the exchange.
Doesn't matter when we are talking about DTAG, which is the dominant ISP and will not peer for free. Yeah, you can peer with a lot of smaller networks which is nice, but not enough.
Same applies for the US market where the big players refuse to peer.
This reflects only the peering capacity available for public peering and only what has been documented by each ISP for that network. Private peerings (that are direct connections to another network) are much much more cost-effective and easier to scale for a large ISP. In any case you can safely assume that DTAGs peering capacity by far exceeds one or the other Tbit, but it's also far from being sufficient capacity after all. They may also be the largest ISP in Germany by user count, while other metrics may vary ;).
While that is certainly true, that is not what I meant. For one, it's very cheap to reach such exchanges for companies like Hetzner, because they usually operate their data centers on the same campus, to safe exactly on that backhaul cost to the exchange. By implication all the ISPs are expected to extend their network into these facilities to pick up traffic. While it's true that some ISPs operate big POPs near exchanges, it's not where their customers are. And both users and data center operators rightfully expect a professionally built network with redundancy etc. In that respect it's not necessarily unfair that they charge for the traffic. (While it is certainly unfair that they don't upgrade their connections to extort outrageous prices from other market participants and what's much worse to contain internet growth on a large scale, which is why Germany is a fairly under-developed country in terms of internet connectivity).
But also, people who work for exchange point operators are the only ones left flying business class in the telecom industry. At the same time public exchanges are a single point of failure in the network that one should(!) design around anyway. There are much cleaner solutions you can design into a network at a fraction of that cost.
For our reference, you may want to check that list, it is really outdated/onesided [1], and not reflecting the reality. Better refer to ookla/netindex or other similar services [2]
The most important point the author is missing is code readability - being forced to write opinionated code is one thing. Having a chance to read somebody elses code (or your own code 3 months later) and avoiding eternal debate on code formatting is priceless. Programming is not about being able to outsmart others, in particular not in a large-scale project.
...every large scale project I've worked on has had a set coding standard and supplied auto-format tools either as IDE plugins or as part of the checkin procedure to make it easy to adhere to the standard.
Because unlike sendmail, CVS hasn't been effectively broken for even one decade, let alone two.
Also, because CVS meshes better with their development philosophy (something about the fact that everything's in one repo, and CVS allows checking out portions of a repo, whereas Git only lets you check out the whole repo).
Just because it isn't as trendy or hip as Git doesn't mean it's automatically broken or obsolete.
I've had an intensive use of CVS for years, followed by an intensive use of SVN for years.
During my CVS years, I never ran into an issue. ever. We can all agree it lacks many useful features but it's also as easy as it can get and it does not corrupt repositories. Calling it "broken" is far from truth.
During my SVN years, I can recall two repository corruptions which no matter how they occurred, just should not have. I think one was related to a bug in the db(3) backend, the other I dunno as I was not in charge of the repository. So... "superior" is debatable.
Nowadays I mostly use Git and CVS, both for different purposes and both making sense in their own purpose. I would not be so affirmative about technologies because you only know so much from your experience and use-cases ;-)
At least with Chrome you can install the Daltonize! plugin. That plugin even has a "simulation" mode to help color-visible to see how your page looks like to (some of) the colorblind out there.
