As someone who runs 7 servers in different datacenters (including cloud, local, and 2 in my home rack), being able to test and update on one system, then push that update to all the others, is a dream. Immutability is a step in that process, since it prevents weirdness from creeping in between updates. My only gripe right now with the options is they all still feel bloated. I miss original Rancher. All I need is Docker/Podman, and maybe wireguard to string the servers together. Likewise, my data hoarder computers need only zfs and enough on top to link them safely (so, wireguard). If I could focus on 2 stacks that I can push out elsewhere easily, I would be soooo much happier. Sain immutability tools are honestly magical.
faeranne
joined 1 year ago
Another way to look at it is: How would you solve this problem with email?
The reality is, there is no way to solve the problem of moderation across disparate servers without some unified point of contact. With any form of federation, your options are:
- close-source the protocol, api, and implementation and have the creator be the final arbiter, either by proxy of code, or by having a back door
- Have every instance agree to a singular set of rules/admins
- Don't and just let the instances decide where to draw lines.
The reality is, any federated system is gonna have these issues, and as long as the protocol is open, anyone can implement any instance on top of it they want. It would be wonderful to solve this issue "properly", but it's like dealing with encryption. You can't force bad people to play by the rules, and any attempt to do so breaks the fundamental purpose of these systems.
The currebt rule says "No propritary tools" which seems reasonable when you add in that glueing in is considered "non-replacable" too. The GBA SP needed a single screw to hold in it's battery and nothing else. Plus with proper threading, screws last much longer than plastic clips.
I feel like there is some overthinking of the monty problem here. The answer no makes the most sense. Consider this, what is behind the doors is predetermined, right? So either the smallest number of people you can hit is 0 or 5. The most is 10. Chosing either a or c guarentees at least 5 people hit. Choosing B limits the number who can be hit to 5 (if they're behind the door). So you should always choose B and always keep the choice.