Yes they have a reputation for merciless shuttering of services, but come on.
What is ample time for a company that hired a webdev one time to build them a static website and never checks webmaster@domain emails?
That kind of outfit is much more likely to be a victim of missed renewal or a myriad other technical screwups than a Google-initiated exit of the registrar business.
I feel like Google marketing has no idea the absolute monster of a problem they've created by allowing their business to get a reputation for being extremely unreliable in the B2B space.
They can certainly count on a spate of hyperventilating HN posts whenever they announce any kind of service-related news.
More seriously, their most celebrated servicides are consumer-oriented, like Google Reader. "Extremely unreliable in the B2B space" sounds like an exaggeration to me.
I mean my company, which isn't small, jumped ship from G-suite based SSO for Okta a few years back out of business concern - so while single anecdotes don't make for proofs it's definitely not non-existent.
I'd also suggest just bringing your tone down, this isn't a fight and calling people on the other side of the argument "hyperventilating" doesn't really do anything to promote meaningful discussion.
> I also believe you have to follow the Greek Orthodox religion to be able to visit - they might make some rare exceptions.
You need a permit (effectively, a visa) to enter the peninsula, and there is a daily quota. About a tenth of available permits can be issued to non-Orthodox visitors. They don't single out the Greek church from other Orthodox churches (AFAIK).
[I researched the entry requirements a couple of years ago out of curiosity, but never tried to actually visit. Something may have changed in the meantime, but somehow I doubt it :)]
I got misled by parent. I knew that Biontech had received EU approval in December but from parents comment understood that in the US the approval came shortly after the elections. Sorry.
Still: don't you think the argument holds: US FDA is one of the first to approve is a sign that there can't be much delay.
There is a perception that D has shot its bolt, having been around for quite some time without making a noticeable impact, either by itself or by influencing the mainstream.
> Nothing in the documentation hinted that this was a feature of systemd anywhere
Nothing except three paragraphs in systemd.service(5) (TimeoutStartSec=, TimeoutStopSec=, TimeoutSec=), with references to systemd-system.conf(5) where the defaults are described. I wouldn't call that undocumented. Whether it should exist by default is another question; on balance, I'm glad it does.
I don't remember seeing any documentation at the time, but I'm clearly not the only one who's had issues with this exact problem. The last one has recent examples of people not being able to find it, and understandably so. Their documentation is shit, fullstop, and no reasonable service should restart in a loop by default after 90s. That's just asinine.
This seems to be veering in the direction of the Land of Moved Goalposts and Non-Sequiturs, but I'm game for one more round, because lockdown.
It's rather unlikely that the first issue, which is an ordering problem during service shutdown, has much in common with timeouts during service startup, which you have described as your original issue.
The Stack Exchange question is a straightforward how-to for adjusting the timeouts.
5773 requests a clarification of the documentation of timeouts and signalling behavior.
3901 is a case of misplacing the timeout directive.
2047 is a sort of philosophical problem of reporting uniformity vs. consistency with manual configuration. The systemd team prefers the former, whereas I would prefer the latter for not violating the principle of least surprise, although I understand the reasons for choosing the first option.
Anyhow, I still don't see good support for your assertion of the complete lack of timeout documentation, just tangentially related distractions. A complex set of problems, and service management does qualify, will have edge cases, insufficiently clear documentation, and outright bugs, which is why software is never finished. Older init systems had all of these, but they didn't give you the tools to attempt to rectify the problems, so it was all more or less swept under the rug. Using a facile "shit, fullstop" characterization therefore tells me more about your views than the actual technical merits or documentation quality of systemd.
The post is about how systemd wasted lots of time, in a thread about software that has wasted lots of time. The issues around bad documentation and the specific issue (the last one is probably the issue I had, but this was five years ago lol. Knowing me and arch linux, I probably didn't have the full man pages installed, so the cli tools were the only thing I had available.) wasted me a lot of time and very clearly others, and that's exactly the point of this discussion!
Hell, to troubleshoot that issue, I even ran something like a `find / -exec strings -a '{}' ; | grep timeout` and found nothing that ended up being helpful. But I absolutely had some form of documentation, again likely the last link I provided which isn't simply a philosophical issue when it provides misleading information that would have ultimately fixed the issue if it gave more informative output!
You admit yourself that the documentation can be insufficiently clear with bugs, and it's true: systemd happens to have lots of time killing bugs. The whole point of this thread.
Cyclists in Amsterdam don't wear helmets as a rule -- YouTube is chock full of videos of Amsterdam bicycle traffic, so you can see for yourself. Therefore, it's not surprising that a texting cyclist wouldn't wear a helmet.
To be clear, texting on a bicycle is not a good idea, helmet or no helmet.
That's internet in a nutshell, and HN is not that different despite pretensions to the contrary. What partly redeems it is the better than even chance that in posts with technical subjects, someone informed and/or competent will appear and write something worthy. You learn to filter out the rest.
> The Governor claims he never attended a meeting. Wouldn't this be an easy item to fact check by getting records of meeting attendees?
That meeting was probably never on the official schedule. There are numerous ways to arrange such things off the books. The Gov's office can certainly provide the schedule which will give him plausible deniability, after which it's he said she said, unless another witness comes forward.
(If the above strikes you as too underhanded and sleazy, well, the whole affair is such. The lure of Amazon HQ2 was in play, remember.)
> Obama not just invaded other countries, he also was bold enough to accept Nobel Peace award for it.
I think your timeline is a bit scrambled. Obama got the Nobel Peace (or rather, Not-GW-Bush-Jr) prize in the first year of his presidency, before any foreign interventions that could be realistically ascribed to his policy.
What is ample time for a company that hired a webdev one time to build them a static website and never checks webmaster@domain emails?
That kind of outfit is much more likely to be a victim of missed renewal or a myriad other technical screwups than a Google-initiated exit of the registrar business.
I feel like Google marketing has no idea the absolute monster of a problem they've created by allowing their business to get a reputation for being extremely unreliable in the B2B space.
They can certainly count on a spate of hyperventilating HN posts whenever they announce any kind of service-related news.
More seriously, their most celebrated servicides are consumer-oriented, like Google Reader. "Extremely unreliable in the B2B space" sounds like an exaggeration to me.