1. 1

    This post almost makes zero sense… apart from “buy my product” it’s pretty much a series of unconnected dots and buzzwords masquerading as cohesive argument for… something?!

    tens of millions of requests every month ~ 4 requests per second…

    1. 19

      Or just … don’t register them in the first place because they’re emblematic of everything that’s wrong with western colonialism: https://gigaom.com/2014/06/30/the-dark-side-of-io-how-the-u-k-is-making-web-domain-profits-from-a-shady-cold-war-land-deal/

      1. 0

        they’re emblematic of everything that’s wrong with western colonialism

        Colonialism, you say?

        The rights for selling .io domains are held by a British company called Internet Computer Bureau (ICB) [..] The .io domains each cost £60 ($102) before taxes, or twice that if you’re outside the EU. The British government granted these rights to ICB chief Paul Kane back in the 1990s.

        Don’t you think something like “everything that’s wrong with governments deciding who gets to profit from what” would have been more accurate?

        All domain names are sold through some kind of state-enforced monopoly or cartel, which is also what enables the scourge that is domain squatting.

        What’s colonialism got to do with this, besides that the islands were colonized by a .. well, there’s that word again.

        1. -1

          So what’s the problem here, that some how the internet top level .io is some god-given right to some people that were born on an island? That if you were standing around on a piece of land then that land is yours from today till the end of days and that also extends to a particular set of two-characters that somebody else who invented and implemented a network had decided would be assigned some level of relevance to said piece of land? Is it also an injustice if i somehow implemented my own domain resolution system and don’t give up ‘io’ to these islanders? Do you have a list of strings that I need to give to people so I don’t oppress them?

          The amount of desperation that people have to fall for the ‘poor-innocent-uncivilized-islanders-slash-villagers-being-oppressed-by-evil-white-people’ narrative continues to boggle to mind.

          1. 11

            how fucking stupid or wilfully racist do you have to be to not see that ‘poor-innocent-uncivilized-islanders-slash-villagers-being-oppressed-by-evil-white-people’ is quite literally the exact thing that happened here?

        1. 4

          It’s really 2 companies in terms of analytics…

          • Pusher: push messaging / websockets as-a-service
          • Intercom: in browser messaging as-a-service
          • Launch Darkly: A/B testing + feature flags as-a-service
          • Amplitude: analytics
          • Appcues: in browser messaging and help / UI hints as-a-service
          • Quora (??): yeah… what is even happening here?
          • elev.io: support / help docs as-a-service
          • Optimizely: analytics
          1. 1

            Optimizely is A/B testing as well.

          1. 1

            It is a shame that this paper seems not to address the privacy implications of what information could be deduced by the external service providers (and their apps) through the use of procrastinator. and/or what private information ‘procrastinator’ would need to function as intended.

            1. 2

              I’m not really sure what this article is trying to say or do other than just be marketing puff piece?

              1. 2

                The title is funny, though. I give it the win on mocking the “serverless” term.

              1. 1

                Here’s a script to help with the backwards incompatible configuration changes: https://github.com/fgsch/varnish3to4

                Note to self: never ever disrespect your open source projects' users like that. Either provide a stable public API or the tools to automate the migrations.

                1. 1

                  Isn’t that what major versions are for?

                  1. 1

                    In my ideal world major versions are for major features, not major breakage.

                    1. 3

                      And stay stuck with mistakes forever? Is the only solution a fork? Majors aren’t meant to be backwards-compatible.

                      1. 1

                        Bug fixing and API stability are orthogonal concepts, aren’t they? Unless you mean mistakes in the API itself in which case I’ll remind you that no one really suffers from the typo in “HTTP referer”. And for more serious API design mistakes the proper punishment would be to keep maintaining the old version forever in addition to the new stuff you just added.

                        1. 3

                          Well, semver would disagree with you about never breaking backwards compat on API.

                          Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
                          
                          MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
                          MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and
                          PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
                          
                            1. 1

                              That was the exception and not the example. Torvalds just thought there were enough features to warrant a new release and 2.6.40 seemed to be pushing it. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147415

                              1. 1

                                Well, in my ideal world (which someone thought it’s “-1 incorrect” :-) ) major versions for major features is the rule, not the exception. The Linux kernel is a good example of (public) API stability and we should learn from it.

                1. 1

                  Hi I’m James Butler, Engineer who occasionally writes appalling javascript and does operations stuff when no one more grown up is looking.