please don't do this to your synology

leave it to serve files and iscsi. it's very good at it

if you leave it alone, no extra software, it will basically be completely stable. it's really impressive

Second this, just use it for files, it’s great for it. 10+ years uptime if you leave it alone.

not just not care, a lot of companies actively hate what you are doing :-(

as you say, cutthroat

Location: London, UK

Remote: Office is better, but I was remote for 5 years and could do it again

Willing to relocate: Complicated

Technologies: Java, Python, Postgres, Linux, Networking

Resume: Professional developer since 2004. Apple, Google, startups, ran an ISP. IC and management. 1st class degree from university that is number 5 for computer science in the uk.

Email: mail@tcox.org

Specifically looking for non-growth mindset, non-toxic, normal jobs. If you work weekends, please move along. If you grind people against each other in weird secretive stack ranking exercises, please also move along.

I'm nice, helpful, communicative, and open, and I would like to work in a place that expects that. Please.

Weirdly, Windows Server is a better desktop experience.

It does not ask you to play Candy Crush, for example.

location: london uk

remote: ok, have done so for many years

willing to relocate: too complicated

technologies: java (25 years), python (1 year, but it's fun)

resume: apple, google, startups, a bank, 20+ years of experience, 1st class degree from a good institution. email me for a pdf please

no 'growth mindset' places please

email: mail@tcox.org

shared libs happened because memory was scarce

pretty cool that we are undoing it as a design decision

but it will take a long time

You missed the joke.

Flatpak is not getting rid of shared libraries. They're just reimplementing them in a way that's strictly worse in multiple ways.

Re-read the section "How Flatpak Tries to Save Space: Runtimes and Deduplication" in the article.

an economist sees a 20 dollar note on the floor. Doesn't pick it up. If it was there, someone would have picked it up already.

scientist has heard this so many times in the past he decides to test its validity. He drops 20 dollars in front of economist. Economist takes the 20.

Scientist: Damn it, now I'm out 20 dollars!

maybe you're running a reverse proxy? it can direct you differently depending on how you refer to it

I think you're being a bit unfair here. Apple does care about security and privacy. It's part of their culture.

I totally agree and disagree. Yes it’s their culture but it’s not unfair at all.

Its the only big tech company that sells privacy to consumers. They could do that because unlike the competition they weren’t an ad company and thus didn’t need to spy. (This is changing and no longer true, but that’s a different story).

This competitive advantage goes away if nobody can sell privacy because it’s illegal. A publicly traded corporation does not exit a large market because one of their products is banned, much less because of principles. Apple will comply just as they’ve done before, and while maintaining the blast radius to only introducing the backdoor on UK residents.

The article‘s author argues that this would be a slippery slope with secondary and tertiary effects that Apple might not be willing to risk.

I really hope so! I have no doubts they will fight hard, and that will be good for everyone. But going decentralized? No way. The motivation isn’t privacy for the sake of human rights, is what I’m saying. Heck, I’m happy as long as Apple thinks it still is valuable enough to keep selling in a world of omnipresent surveillance. But I’m not delusional about the ”values” of a public mega corporation.

The company culture is relatively malleable. Apple does probably care about security and privacy, but mainly because of profits. That does help in this case because they don't want leave themselves between two big portions of profits.

You appear to have misspelt "marketing".