Just a note, unless you have a very specific use-case you don't want to do deduplication.
See:
antithetical
joined 1 year ago
Yes, and it saved my ass a few times. Every computer I own now and in the future will have at least mirrored or raidz disks with zfs. On all desktops, laptops, servers and nas.
Even upgrading from spinning rust to ssd was easy replacing the disks one by one and resilvering.
The (k)ubuntu installation made it very easy to have an encrypted zfs rootfs but they may have removed it on newer installation iso's, I'm not sure..
TLDR; Does that mean they can throw Zuckerberg in jail?
Ha sure, although since it is not well traveled there aren't any Lemmy comments yet. But you're very welcome to visit..
See: Gele Sneeuw
Nice, I did the same for my blog. Didn't want to build a whole comment system when Lemmy fits the bill quite nicely :)
Yes, and that is where we enter the complicated territories..
I'm sorry, but have you ever needed to manage some certificates for a legacy system or something that isn't just a simple public facing webserver?
Automation becomes complicated very quickly. And you don't want to give DNS mutation access to all those systems to renew with DNS-01.
I do not agree. Very often, when using libraries for example, you need some extra custom handling on types and data. So the easy way is to inherit and extend to a custom type while keeping the original functionality intact. The alternative is to place the new functionality in some unrelated place or create non-obvious related methods somewhere else. Which makes everything unnecessary complex.
And I think the trait system (in Rust for example) creates so much duplicate or boilerplate code. And in Rust this is then solved by an even more complex macro system. But my Rust knowledge might just nog be mature enough, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong..
As a life-long developer in OOP languages (C++, Java, C#, among others) I still think OOP is quite good when used with discipline. And it pains me that there is so much misunderstood hate towards it nowdays.
Most often novice programmers try to abuse the inheritence for inpropper avoiding of duplicate code, and write themself into a horrible sphagetti of dependencies. So having a good base or design beforehand helps a lot. But building the code out of logical units with fenced responisbilities is in my opinion a good way to structure code.
Currently I'm doing a (hobby) project in Rust to get some feeling for it. And I have a hard time to wrap my mind around some design choices in the language that would have been very easily solved with a more OOP like structure. Without sacrificing the safety guarantees. But I think they've deliberatly avoided going in that direction. Ofcourse, my understanding of Rust is far from complete so it is probably that I missed some nuance.. But still I wonder. It is a good learning experience though, a new way to look at things.
The article was not very readable on mobile for me but the examples seemed a bit contrived..
On a city crossroad, with warning signs, lights, pylons and tape not to drive over it, was a car in the center. Sunken to its axels in freshly poured concrete. The idiot driver had just ignored everything and could now pay to have the concrete fixed.
Ha, you do you.. But I'm glad they have alternative means to enjoy the streams.
That's such a shame. ZFS has been rock solid for me for years while I hear lots of scary stories about btrfs.