• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle

  • Depends on specific machine setup and how good the backup is.

    Backup requirements for /usr there are sticky bits set on some binaries. That needs to be preserved. In all cases soft links likely need to be preserved for things to work correctly on future package installs. Hard links can be problematic, but if you have a large enough drive or not that many it wont matter. Running package verification can be help after restore to make sure everything looks right. If running a Linux system with SELinux in enforcing mode (RHEL on many derivatives), then the security context will also need to be preserved BUT running a relabel will probably work if the security context was not included in backups. Sometimes running the relabel process wont work if there are files that needs a specific security context but are not listed in the security context database. Can’t provide more details because most of my experience with that is on systems we just replace (LSPP custom labeling resulted in systems that if you booted into permissive would then be unbootable, so they were just reinstalled once any debugging was done).

    For /boot things can get tricky depending on the distribution, what boot manager is used, and /boot was a separate partition or not. Basically the boot manager (probably grub) needs to know how to find the files in boot so it can load the kernel. In most cases if you restore /boot and rerun the tools to update the boot manger everything will be fine. BUT some distributions, hardware setups, or dual boot configurations are more complicated, so extra work might be needed.

    You didn’t mention /dev, which is all special files. These don’t need to be restored, just make sure the right processes recreate them. There are tools to do this, hopefully the packages are installed. Or boot from a rescue disk and fix it. Look up instruction for your specific distro.





  • I think the term is demographic inversion

    Standard of living is supported by those who can produce versus those who cannot. As population declines the demographics skew to mostly be older non-working people. There is a certain point where the percentage of people working versus not working is too small, then the economy can no longer produce enough for everyone’s current standard of living. It can range from relatively minor case of not being able to get all the variety of food, or it can be major where people starve because not enough food can be produced. Or medicine, or care, or electricity, or oil, or plastic, or TV shows, etc.

    Given enough time a new equilibrium and standard of living comparable to the old one will likely result, but getting to that new standard of living can mean people died.


  • Your remarks are spot on. They are why I’ve read up on some of these problems over the years, even though I’m not an economist.

    Automation very well might mitigate and/or cause other issues. It is to be seen if a capitalistic system will succeed in being reasonable, especially some of the more virulently capitalistic ones like the US. People being more productive has avoided many problems in capitalism for a long time, AI is a new way for this to happen.

    Universal income is an excellent idea. There have been some really convincing studies where it has been implemented on small scales (one town or village). So far it hasn’t gone much farther as there are strong contingents of people unreasonably against the idea.

    Basing economy on growth is problematic. Growth being key to capitalism has been a criticism for awhile. It is reckless, doesn’t reflect actual reality of resource limits of growth, and sets up problems some countries are facing (declining birthrate, job displacement due to automation, etc).



  • Economic collapse, to a greater or lesser extant depending on how fast adjustments are made. Though in some cases adjustments cannot be made. Worst case societal collapse (think violent revolution).

    Pretty much the entire world economy is based on growth. Individual countries economies for the most part are also based on growth. In either case part of the growth is in population so there are more consumers. Additional most societal institutions and jobs require having a certain number of people to function for everyone. Different countries have different critical jobs and institutions. Care for older population is a big one in most places, doctors, nurses, in home care, and people to do things for the old they can’t do anymore. Too few young people means likely too few of those people to take care of older population. That in turn either means the state has to pay more to get more people in those jobs, or care falls upon family which can force them to work less (or quit completely). More money spent by government means less spent somewhere else, some of that will be critical or at least inconvenient for someone. Family working less, or quitting altogether, means they are no longer adding to the economy and become a drag. Further a ballooning older population can lead to a drastic drop in tax revenue and compound the drag on the economy they are already having. GDP can drop which can devalue a currency, then leading to increased costs for imports and borrowing. This can further discourage people who would otherwise have children to not have any. Once this gets into a positive feedback loop it can continue to get worse faster than a society can adjust.

    Everything is interconnected in our economy inside any one country, but also across the entire world. A positive feedback loop (like the mortgage crisis the US) can lead to a recession, or worse a depression. Then people are out of work and might not be able to afford the means to continue living, they then can become desperate. This can lead to a crisis and even revolutions (has happened before).

    Too big a drop in population guarantied to cause societal collapse? Of course not. It doesn’t even guarantee economic collapse, might just be a recession where most people survive fine in the long term. It might all be fine. What the outcome is really depends on how well positive feed back loops caused by a drop in population are handled, and if they happen slow enough they can be handled. Lots of the Western world is in trouble, but a population drop might help climate change, it also might not if a positive feedback loop (permafrost methane) starts accelerating climate change.


  • Depends on environment.

    Real hardware separate for a server partitions for: /home, /var, swap, sometimes /usr, sometimes /var/log/audit Depends on deployment requirements, and if a system is expected to run after filling up audit.

    Real hardware for a at home desktop: /var, swap, maybe /home, or just one partition for / and one for swap.

    Cloud: all one partition, put swap in a file if it is needed. Cloud images are easy to grow if it is just one partition. Cloud-init will handle that automatically with the right packages installed, no configuration needed. Swap partitions are unlikely to be the right size as they vary according to memory and memory varies according to instance/guest sizes. Swap makes auto growing root partition harder (cloud-init custom config injection required). Best practice is to size workload and instances to not need swap whenever possible.






  • There have been ways to recycle organic waste into oil for decades. They even built a full sized plant to use turkey offal from a nearby turkey processor (initially could get it for free). Even ran demos on tire rubber or plastics. Initially cost effective when oil prices were high as they could sell the oil.

    Few of problems. Up front cost is high. Oil price volotility and the drop in oil prices made it uneconomic. Coupled with needing to pay for the turkey offal (someone else started paying the processor for it), killed the plant being fully self funded.

    Since then refinements in the process, or closely related ones, keep being developed without being able to overcome the economics. These processes can recycle from just about anything organic, including plastics, to whatever oil feedstock you want. Plastic as good as virgin plastics, pharmaceuticals, or whatever oil you want. Still the economics don’t work when oil is cheap and new oils societal costs are externalized.


  • I read that same link and took it to mean maybe RedHat is violating the GPL. Only way to know for sure is to go to court, which involves risks to both sides. The more I’ve thought about it the more unsure I am.

    I am uncomfortable with the direction they’ve taken and fear this will start up another round of open source license proliferation, but hope not. That has never been helpful for open source and only served to make business hesitant to use it.


  • I have not listened to the podcast unfortunately.

    Rebuilders are fine, and RedHat is fine to not spend the effort to debrand their source rpms. The problem is one of value. The value RedHat provides for some people is probably worth more than RedHat charges. The value RedHat provides to others is less than the effort it takes to renew a developer license once a year for 16 installs. The problem is that there are several who are ending support for RHEL because they fall into the latter group (notably Jeff Geerling for ansible roles). RHEL losing out on that support might be huge, might not, only time will tell.



  • They weren’t dying before, but they be might now.

    The problem is that the value RHEL provides. For my PERSONAL projects the value is less than the cost of renewing my free license every year from them. For a company shipping a system that will in the field for a decade with minimal updates is completely that must work with minimal downtime the value they are providing is higher than what they charge.

    That difference in value by users requires RedHat to balance costs the they can charge against maximizing numbers of users versus income. The catch they are running into is some people they provide little value to will just leave, but those people were providing a lot of value for customers. 100 or so ansible roles that your customers were using is suddenly no longer going to be supported, and eventually likely not to work. That is likely a net negative for value provided to customers and goes against the spirit of open source.

    The people using Rocky or Alma are unlikely to see cost of RHEL being worth it. So they will go elsewhere. But having a bigger number of users running on those systems provided value and network effect for RedHat even though they are not paying. That indirect benefit is now lost.

    RedHat obviously feels all of that does not provide enough value to justify the cost of possible lost sales. I think they are wrong, but maybe they are right.

    Maybe they are violating the GPL which explicitly says you cannot add limitations for users sharing code. From here it sure looks questionable at best, intentionally breaking the license at worst. That will have to be left for someone else to decide.