Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more Operyl's commentslogin

Both forks coexist and pull fixes from each other.


Oh yes please. Do you have a "preorder" on the App Store yet?


No, but I'll look into that as I get closer to having something ready.


I have to ask: why didn't you plug your phone in while stationary? That seemed entirely avoidable.



Just need Factorio integration. Given output from k describe pods -A, generate a blueprint with ingress represented by a belt balancer/splitter bit that feeds into furnaces leading to assemblers leading into boxes representing storage or something.


> reached docker in terms of virtualization

Except docker, on its own without something else in the stack, isn't Virtualization.


Not arguing this again, go edit the wikipedia article if you are so confident


Docker is kernel virtualisation. Are you thinking of OS virtualisation, like a VM?


Docker does not virtualize the kernel, in fact the kernel version “inside” Docker is the same as the host.


Virtualization usually refers to OS/ device emulation in software. Docker uses kernel namespaces which is an entirely unrelated feature.


I find it funny how some obtuse devs are unable to use abstraction in software of all things.


Docker is OS-level virtualization. VMs are hardware virtualization. Different layers.


It’s not virtualization, it’s namespaces. Docker makes use of Linux kernel features; started out with cgroups and now uses libcontainer. Each container is running in its own isolated(ish) namespace on the same host kernel.

It’s _very_ different technology than virtualization.

You don’t need docker to make a container on Linux (or Solaris for that matter).


>It’s not virtualization

You are incorrect, this is OS-level virtualization:

"OS-level virtualization is an operating system (OS) virtualization paradigm in which the kernel allows the existence of multiple isolated user space instances, including containers (LXC, Solaris Containers, AIX WPARs, HP-UX SRP Containers, Docker, Podman)..."[0].

>it’s namespaces. Docker makes use of Linux kernel features; started out with cgroups and now uses libcontainer. Each container is running in its own isolated(ish) namespace on the same host kernel.

Yes, OS-level virtualization.

>It’s _very_ different technology than virtualization.

Incorrect, this is a virtualization technology.

>You don’t need docker to make a container on Linux (or Solaris for that matter).

No one claimed otherwise.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-level_virtualization


That isn't even true, you share your host kernel. There are parts of the kernel that aren't namespaced as well. The kernel keyring is probably the big one.


>That isn't even true

You are incorrect, this is true:

"OS-level virtualization is an operating system (OS) virtualization paradigm in which the kernel allows the existence of multiple isolated user space instances, including containers (LXC, Solaris Containers, AIX WPARs, HP-UX SRP Containers, Docker, Podman)..."[0].

>you share your host kernel

Kernel != OS

>There are parts of the kernel that aren't namespaced as well. The kernel keyring is probably the big one.

Immaterial.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-level_virtualization


You can call it what you want but absolutely no one considers chroot virtualization in any meaningful sense. Nothing is being virtualized, containers are just regular processes on the host system.

"OS Virtualization" != "OS" "Virtualization"


1st of all yes, many people consider not only chroot to be virtualization (of the file system). Yes it is arguable as it is the birth of lightweight virtualization. But you were wrong in saying no one does.

https://papers.freebsd.org/2000/phk-jails/

https://youtu.be/hgN8pCMLI2U?si=CH-Fpyj16bEWDZzc

2nd containers go farther and virtualize network, and other resources.


>You can call it what you want

I call it as it is.

>but absolutely no one considers chroot virtualization in any meaningful sense.

Absolutely everyone who's knowledgable in virtualization considers chroot to be a type of OS-level virtualization.

>Nothing is being virtualized, containers are just regular processes on the host system.

Wrong, "...OS-level virtualization is an operating system (OS) virtualization paradigm in which the kernel allows the existence of multiple isolated user space instances..."

"OS Virtualization" == "OS " + "Virtualization"


It’s not terribly difficult to get a gov domain, it’s just much easier to do an ordinary one. Smaller towns and cities outsource to cheap WYSIWYG type builders that also include a domain so it’s really simple to just go that route too.


It can get quite unprofessional at that level. There was a small suburb in our metro whose .com domain was an insult against the core city. I'm sure they thought it was funny but eventually it did get changed to the town and state name.


They buy the domain their customer _wants_ them to buy. That customer is free to transfer it out if they want to. What are you going on about?


Didn’t Samsung introduce their own App Store?

https://galaxystore.samsung.com/


it ships both app stores on every android phone. In my experience, people only use the Samsung store by accident


I was just refuting the “only Chinese phones have alt stores” factoid.


The OPs main point was that the existence of sideloading or third-party app stores hasn't led to major security issues. And apps still have to comply with the sandboxing.


Why do people write frameworks on top of programming languages that other developers wrote?

Feels like a similar kind of energy, but your scenario is easier: if it goes away they could find new maintainers or take it up themselves.


If I recall correctly, removing/unpairing the AirPods and forcing a re-pair will forcibly trigger an update.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: