Convenience is often the biggest enemy of privacy.

The current system where we can choose between security and convenience is good enough for me. I loath those who would take that choice away from me.

First of all, I said privacy, not security. Huge difference.

That aside, I am not advocating for less choice, merely observing that in many cases users willingly give up their privacy (or other rights) for convenience. Your reaction to my observation actually proves my point.

IIUC, you live sw development but you took the job you hate just because it is at FAANG? If I may ask, why would you want to be there and nowhere else? Asking because there are quite a few great jobs around for devs, so the decision seems pretty weird to me, which probably means I am missing something... :)

That's a nice idea, thank you! No more worrying about node versions either.

It is also awesome, easy to use and very convenient. If you are configuring anything through AWS web GUI, you should give Terraform a go, you won't regret it.

(not affiliated in any way, just a happy user)

What did they change the license to? If you have some examples, I would be curious to see how they handled that.

I was under the impression that it was Commons Clause that people started avoiding in favor of other "cloud protection licenses", both to avoid possible confusion and because Commons Clause got visceral reactions from some members of FLOSS community. Unfortunately, other similar licenses are less recognizable. The whole point of generic licenses is that they should be well known, widely used, and the legal departments already know their tradeoffs. If each company writes their own license then this makes it difficult for other companies to use their software, because legal departments need to check every license separately.

Is there a generic license that is the same (in spirit) as Apache + Commons Clause?

That wouldn't help much - there would still be neighbors bordering your (now bigger) property, just further away. You need to buy an island instead.

I try to make clean commits that do one thing only. If I have trouble writing a meaningful commit message, it means I have failed and should do a better job next time.

That said, I often make a messy "wip" commit that I push to my branch, just so that the work doesn't get lost. But I always undo such a commit and clean it up.

Also, I always use git add -p, so that I can break changes into multiple meaningful commits and review them one more time before pushing.

So, 4 years later, and SNMP is still alive and well. It has (a lot of) rough edges, but it works, is ubiquitous and all sysadmins know how to work with it. Not even such a bad standard once you get used to it. I can't imagine anyone running a (smallish, not G-size) corporate network without it.

> Not even such a bad standard once you get used to it.

It ticks all the boxes except for security.

I'm not sure how to get past that one without pushing a private key or a shared secret onto each managed device (maybe with SNMP SET?).

If you're polling a device you can put wrieguard on, not a problem. If you're not, wireguard to a device on the same LAN and ACL off SNMP traffic at the router.

It helps that it’s been around forever.

So, like... SNMP Traps? :-)

If using netsnmp, it will work without problems, always (in my experience). Anything that doesn't work exactly the same (bugs and all) - good luck. The reason is that everyone seems to use netsnmp when developing, and when it works, the work is done. Doesn't work elsewhere? Yeah, that's too bad.