[HN Gopher] A note for LWN subscribers
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A note for LWN subscribers
        
       Author : stevekemp
       Score  : 191 points
       Date   : 2022-01-20 13:47 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (lwn.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (lwn.net)
        
       | travisgriggs wrote:
       | I like LWN. It is great. They do a bang up job. One of the few
       | online offerings that provides a value-noise-ratio akin to some
       | of the great publications of the 80's (Byte, etc). I was a
       | subscriber in the past. That employer made it easy. My current
       | one, it would be a hassle not worth it. I could easily pay for it
       | myself just on professional betterment grounds. But the minute I
       | did that, there's a number of "a few dollars here, a few dollars
       | there" great value-for-money services that I should participate
       | in, and I'd bankrupt myself chasing them all.
       | 
       | I lament that micro payment pay as a go has never really caught
       | on in the world of the internet. When I was a kid, you could get
       | the paper delivered to your house daily. But you could also run
       | down to a local box, put a quarter in, and get a one off that
       | way. If you were going to do the newsbox run every day, the
       | subscription paid off as a volume discount. On the flip side, it
       | allowed you to participate in multiple papers at a casual rate
       | easier. You could grab the (relatively expensive) WSJ when it
       | looked really interesting.
        
       | jbirer wrote:
       | I don't see the point, other news sites are free.
        
       | COGlory wrote:
       | I wanted to use this thread to bring attention to lwnfeed (not my
       | project).
       | 
       | https://github.com/tulir/lwnfeed
       | 
       | It is a docker (or standalone) web server that caches your
       | credentials and logs into your LWN, pulls articles, and serves
       | them back to you over RSS. I have my NextCloud News app setup to
       | pull data from it, so I get the full, paid LWN releases in my RSS
       | reader.
        
       | synergy20 wrote:
       | 10+ years subscriber here, will keep subscribing it no matter
       | what, even though I read less kernel stuff these days.
        
       | treebog wrote:
       | Question, hopefully not too off topic: if I subscribe, can I get
       | the weekly edition emailed to me like a newsletter? Or at least a
       | notification when it's posted? I want to subscribe but doubt I'll
       | actually remember to log in and read it every week.
        
         | corbet wrote:
         | You can sign up for a notification email when the weekly
         | edition is posted, yes. We don't currently have an option to
         | receive the whole thing in email, but that has been on the list
         | for a while...
        
           | treebog wrote:
           | Ah, great. Thank you
        
       | SEJeff wrote:
       | Jonathan has been quietly battling cancer for some time[1] and is
       | a literal treasure. I'm happy to continue paying for his health
       | insurance and treatment while also furthering a really good
       | community service. LWN is the only Linux news service that has
       | the technical depth and breadth while also staying solvent.
       | 
       | He's also really friendly in person and was willing to answer
       | relatively stupid questions at a conference from random people
       | that approach him to say hi (like me!)
       | 
       | [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/594980/
        
         | tentacleuno wrote:
         | > LWN is the only Linux news service that has the technical
         | depth and breadth while also staying solvent.
         | 
         | Would you have any other publications to recommend?
         | 
         | I personally read El Reg, ArsTechnica, Phoronix, TechRepublic,
         | and a few others (including CNET). The last two are arguably of
         | less journalistic quality, however I do very much like the
         | ability to leave comments and participate in discussions.
        
           | SEJeff wrote:
           | lwn has no peers. Before I found it, and when I was earlier
           | in my career, I spent about an hour every evening trying to
           | read most of the relevant to me threads on LKML directly
           | (seriously). I've paid for it for the kernel section alone,
           | but the rest of the news is really good.
           | 
           | phoronix is hit/miss. The methodology Michael uses for many
           | of his clickbait benchmark stories is often absolute garbage.
           | He does a relatively decent job covering the latest
           | happenings in desktop linux tech, but overall the quality is
           | all over the place and the clickbait + ads get really old. I
           | once setup the phoronix test suite to build an automated
           | performance regression test harness and was ummm
           | underwhelmed. That was about 10 years or so ago mind you, so
           | maybe it has improved since.
           | 
           | The others you mention are all quite good. I'm a huge fan of
           | just about anything sjvn writes (he posts a lot of zdnet,
           | pcmag, etc). I'm also a fan of following the planet blogs for
           | some of the bigger projects I care about (e.g.:
           | https://planet.gnome.org/) but that's more raw source than
           | actual aggregated news. Just depends on what you're into.
        
         | KennyBlanken wrote:
         | I wish stories like this would inspire more techies to support
         | universal health care in the US.
         | 
         | People should not have to beg for more money for their services
         | or goods because they end up with a disease.
         | 
         | Everyone deserves health care, not just people who are visibly
         | successful/popular.
        
           | yhd8i3q7686i wrote:
           | I live in a country that Americans would recognize as having
           | 'universal health care', and while the US system is also bad,
           | I would prefer it to the fragile and dysfunctional government
           | monopoly that I'm used to. I would prefer a free market with
           | mutual aid societies, but the corporatist system in the US at
           | least lacks the single point of failure and complete
           | unaccountability of a government monopoly.
        
             | brnt wrote:
             | > complete unaccountability of a government monopoly.
             | 
             | That is a problem with the quality of your democracy, not
             | with government monopolies. A corporate oligopoly is
             | virtually identical to a nondemocratic governmental
             | monopoly.
             | 
             | The key thing you want is democratic control.
        
               | yhd8i3q7686i wrote:
               | Democracy is not a mechanism for accountability. No
               | democracy can produce accountability, that's not what
               | it's for. A company with competition has a degree of
               | accountability because their customers can go elsewhere
               | if they are mistreated. A citizen without a lot of money
               | to spend on political campaigns have very little recourse
               | when they are mistreated by the government. Even when the
               | government breaks its own laws, there is almost nothing
               | you can do between qualified, absolute, and sovereign
               | immunity.
               | 
               | The US and other governments have long histories of
               | medical abuses. I would not want an organization that
               | preforms unnecessary and intrusive surgical procedures
               | without consent[0], falsely told people they have cancer
               | in order to remove their reproductive organs[1],
               | intentionally gave people syphilis, hepatitis, and other
               | diseases[2], pretended to treat syphilis to see what
               | happens when it's left untreated[3], etc. to be my only
               | provider of health care. It frankly seems irrational to
               | want an organization that can act with impunity and seem
               | to abuse every function and responsibility it is given to
               | be the sole provider of anything.
               | 
               | [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-
               | gynecolo...
               | 
               | [1]: https://www.insider.com/inside-forced-
               | sterilizations-califor...
               | 
               | [2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/ugly-
               | past-u-s-hum...
        
               | brnt wrote:
               | > Democracy is not a mechanism for accountability.
               | 
               | It is. It is a particularity of the Anglosaxon language
               | space that propaganda that it isn't took root.
        
           | tristan957 wrote:
           | I think universal healthcare might be more popular than most
           | people think. I would consider myself a conservative voter,
           | but I can recognize the good of universal healthcare.
           | Healthcare shouldn't be tied to jobs, and people shouldn't
           | have to bankrupt themselves due to health issues.
           | 
           | I think most discourse in the US is driven by vocal
           | minorities that in no-way represent major sentiment in the
           | rest of the population. It is quite unfortunate. I am not
           | even sure what can change it.
           | 
           | I will be taking my voting very seriously next election
           | because frankly I am tired of this.
        
             | SEJeff wrote:
             | This is a nice breath of fresh air to hear. Unfortunately,
             | it appears that the vocal minority you mention are
             | basically conservative congressmen or their boosters.
        
               | kodah wrote:
               | For now it may be conservative congresspeople but once a
               | Universal Healthcare proposal starts gaining traction all
               | the common support for the initiative will likely
               | shatter. People will disagree on what the intended
               | outcomes are (are they economic, empathy based, or
               | both?), the implementation details, how to pay for it,
               | etc...
        
               | KerrAvon wrote:
               | Yeah, no. We had this fight when Obamacare was being
               | hammered into shape. Universal didn't happen because
               | conservatives in both parties refused to do anything
               | other than say "the poor can go to emergency rooms for
               | treatment".
               | 
               | Now, it's a bit more complicated than that, and single
               | payer was never on the table because Obama decided to
               | pre-capitulate in the futile hope of being able to tag
               | the ACA as bipartisan, but it's only gotten worse. If a
               | literal global pandemic doesn't bring people to their
               | senses, I'm not sure what will. There's just too much
               | money being funneled to incentivize our politicians to do
               | the wrong thing (Sinema being an obvious example).
        
               | kodah wrote:
               | > Universal didn't happen because conservatives in both
               | parties refused to do anything other than say "the poor
               | can go to emergency rooms for treatment".
               | 
               | "Conservatives in both parties" is a bit reductive and
               | I'll also call out as misinformation/misrepresentation:
               | https://ballotpedia.org/Obamacare_overview
               | 
               | But, what is useful here, is you've provided a fantastic
               | example of the rhetorical devices and reduction we can
               | expect to see.
               | 
               | I say that as a supporter of Universal Healthcare that
               | both replaces and learns lessons from VA Medical.
        
               | GeekyBear wrote:
               | > "Conservatives in both parties" is a bit reductive and
               | I'll also call out as misinformation/misrepresentation:
               | 
               | Are you under the impression that Manchin or the other
               | Conservative Democrats support universal healthcare?
               | 
               | They do not.
        
               | kodah wrote:
               | There's really not that many of them. Secondary to that,
               | which might be a bit pedantic, is I dislike
               | "conservative" being used as a pejorative as I mentioned.
               | It's not really an accurate reflection of what Manchin or
               | others believe in or what the populations they're voting
               | for are concerned with. As I also stated, I think it's a
               | bit reductive.
        
               | GeekyBear wrote:
               | Seventeen Centrist Democratic Senators voted with Trump
               | to kill banking reform.
               | 
               | That does not sound like "not many" of them.
        
               | kodah wrote:
               | There are 48 Democratic senators and 2 independents. I'd
               | have to look at why each of those 17 decided to vote
               | against banking reform. It's not like it's as simple as
               | "conservative" or "not conservative", which is exactly
               | what I'm calling reductive.
        
               | GeekyBear wrote:
               | Conservative Democrats have held the leadership roles in
               | the party since the end of the Regan years.
               | 
               | >The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit
               | corporation founded in 1985 that, upon its formation,
               | argued that the United States Democratic Party should
               | shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late
               | 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. One of its main purposes was to
               | win back white middle class voters with ideas that
               | addressed their concerns. The DLC hailed President Bill
               | Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way
               | politicians and as a DLC success story.
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Counc
               | il
        
               | troutwine wrote:
               | And liberal congressfolk, too, mind. That the behavior of
               | Congress doesn't reflect the broad desires of the public
               | is an ongoing problem -- Gilens & Page's 2014 "Testing
               | Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups,
               | and Average Citizens" is a rough read -- and isn't
               | strictly correlated to whether your tie is blue or red.
               | That said, I do admit that we _also_ have a serious issue
               | with the political class at the national level being
               | split between folks that tack right as hard as they can
               | and centrists that follow them because you gotta land
               | where the "center" is.
        
         | corbet wrote:
         | Thanks for your nice words...
         | 
         | Being a somewhat private person I don't normally talk about
         | health stuff. Also, being a cancer patient, I know better than
         | to say I'm "cured". That said, things have been looking good
         | for a while, to the point that my oncologist fired me a couple
         | of years back. I get to deal with the consequences of the
         | treatment, but the original problem is not really an issue in
         | my life.
         | 
         | I do, however, make a point of ensuring that our health
         | coverage never lapses!
        
           | SEJeff wrote:
           | Glad to hear it, also happy to see that LWN is still
           | thriving.
        
       | CaliforniaKarl wrote:
       | Totally fine with me. I won't bat an eye paying the new price; I
       | think the content is well worth it!
        
       | falcolas wrote:
       | Without getting into the value/lack thereof...
       | 
       | > will increase to $9/month, which is almost exactly in line with
       | that mid-2021 inflation rate
       | 
       | I don't believe that the mid-2021 inflation rate was 28%.
       | Sources+ say it was actually around 7% (which is, admittedly,
       | bloody insane).
       | 
       | + A DDG search and looking at the top 5-6 articles
        
         | cbsmith wrote:
         | https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
         | 
         | Try typing in "2010" and hitting calculate.
        
         | bryanlarsen wrote:
         | 7% is from 2020 to 2021. 28% is from 2010 to 2021.
        
         | pm215 wrote:
         | The article quotes that 28% as being the amount of inflation
         | "from 2010 until the middle of 2021". I haven't checked the
         | figures, but that seems believable for a decade's worth of
         | inflation.
        
       | dannyobrien wrote:
       | I've subscribed to LWN for as long as it had subscriptions. I
       | think it was for a long time the _only_ journalism site I
       | subscribed to. (Actually, I think Jonathan may have thrown me a
       | free sub because I was an underpaid urchin at EFF originally, but
       | I switched to paying, because it was cheap enough and I felt that
       | I should support it.). It has both consistently been the home of
       | some of the best researched, most _honest_ pieces about Linux
       | and, by extension, the progress and troubles of the open source
       | /free software community. I remember on numerous occasions
       | wishing that there were equivalents in the politics and current
       | affairs space. Subscriptions and Patreons are much more popular
       | in those spaces nowadays, but I still don't think I've found its
       | equal. At least not one that lets me read it all the week's
       | updates in one giant HTML page.
        
       | calvinmorrison wrote:
       | LWN is one of the most important reporting sources for linux and
       | the highest quality. I think it would be awesome if Linux or
       | other projects directly sponsored it (maybe they do?). As a sort
       | of 'inside' journalism it could really benefit from funding, and
       | may give it better access to the inner workings.
       | 
       | Keep it up! love LWN!
        
       | xyzzy_plugh wrote:
       | I used to advocate for bulk subscriptions at every employer, but
       | with the growth of cloud services and abstractions like
       | Kubernetes I feel like I can't justify it any longer.
       | 
       | We don't even run any Linux ourselves at my current employer.
       | Pods and lambdas and databases-as-a-service.
       | 
       | I can't help but think this trend will damage shared knowledge in
       | the long run.
        
         | c0l0 wrote:
         | I am pretty certain that
         | 
         | > I can't help but think this trend will damage shared
         | knowledge in the long run.
         | 
         | is an understatement. There will be a few people in the know on
         | how to run "the cloud", and lots and lots of people consuming
         | their services, at bewildering premiums.
        
         | jchw wrote:
         | When running on Kubernetes or Lambda, you are still directly
         | interfacing with the Linux kernel, unless you're under
         | something like gVisor. I also don't think the endgame of
         | "cloud" is that literally nobody knows how to run servers; in
         | fact, Kubernetes is one of those technologies that makes bare
         | metal much more appealing. I think cloud has outsized appeal
         | for now simply because things are moving so quickly that it's
         | difficult to keep up, and I feel like that is probably not
         | forever.
         | 
         | Even just for Kubernetes administration, it's probably good to
         | keep tabs on Linux, especially technologies like cgroups, even
         | if your nodes are managed.
        
           | mschuster91 wrote:
           | > in fact, Kubernetes is one of those technologies that makes
           | bare metal much more appealing
           | 
           | Bare metal on Kubernetes is a PITA though to set up. For
           | extremely small scale stuff in private labs, okay, that takes
           | half an hour, but as soon as you are on the Internet, maybe
           | have a couple rented bare metal machines, it gets nasty. For
           | ingresses, you'll usually need to set up MetalLB which
           | requires acquisition of a range of IP addresses and it only
           | is capable of running _one_ server (the  "speaker") as the
           | one and only entrypoint for _all_ traffic. Not to mention you
           | cannot have roles such as  "internet-exposed node" and "not
           | internet-exposed node", since MetalLB wants to run on all
           | nodes.
           | 
           | Also, a Kubernetes environment will need at least _four_
           | separate network ranges - a network for the Pod IPs, a
           | network for cluster IPs of services, one for the nodes
           | themselves and if you want to expose stuff to the Internet
           | you need a fifth one that holds the public-routed IPs. This
           | is really funny if you are in a corporate environment that
           | uses all three of the historic private ranges (10.0.0.0
           | /8,172.16.0.0/12,192.168.0.0/16), good luck carving out
           | ranges that do not result in routing conflicts.
           | 
           | Mesosphere DC/OS was more usable in that regard as it had
           | pre-defined the roles of nodes, included the load balancer as
           | part of the platform and had only two IP ranges (node-
           | internal and whatever the public IPs of the public nodes
           | were)... whereas it's clear that the only designed/supported
           | way to run a major Kubernetes deployment is to use a fully-
           | managed Kubernetes provider. Everything else is a world of
           | undocumented, spurious-bug-filled stuff and incomplete
           | documentation.
        
             | dewey wrote:
             | > Bare metal on Kubernetes is a PITA though to set up.
             | 
             | I think you are misunderstanding the previous comment. I
             | read it as Kubernetes being so complicated (I enjoy it, but
             | that's another discussion) to operate is making the regular
             | bare metal operation more appealing. So people might choose
             | the well understood bare metal over Kubernetes.
        
             | champtar wrote:
             | MetalLB is the best baremetal LB (for k8s) but far from
             | perfect indeed. For the IP conflicts, there are other
             | private IPv4 range that you can use, just pick something in
             | the CGNAT range (100.64.0.0/10) or in 198.18.0.0/15 ("Used
             | for benchmark testing of inter-network communications
             | between two separate subnets")
        
               | mschuster91 wrote:
               | The best thing about HN: You learn something new every
               | day. Thanks!
        
           | lima wrote:
           | Even with gVisor you're still depending on things like the
           | host kernel's scheduler and memory management.
        
         | akuchling wrote:
         | LWN also has coverage of language runtimes and other projects.
         | Recent stories include one about python-dev discussion of
         | adding a literal syntax for frozensets
         | (https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/881599/ae07750ec86ed3cc/), a
         | new OpenSSH feature on restricting agent keys
         | (https://lwn.net/Articles/880458/), Lessons from log4j
         | (https://lwn.net/Articles/878570/), etc.
         | 
         | I often skip the really in-depth kernel articles, since it
         | makes no difference to anything I do if Linux gets a new slab
         | allocator or whatever, but still find my subscription valuable
         | for hearing about new project releases, as well as these deep
         | project dives.
        
         | 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
         | The prevalence of this attitude is why we have things like
         | Heartbleed and log4shell.
        
       | mindwok wrote:
       | My only problem with LWN is that it's so good, I get upset
       | there's nothing even close to the quality of it for the other
       | hobbies/interests in my life.
        
       | RustyRussell wrote:
       | As the person who originally proposed what Jon ended up calling
       | the Maniacal Supporter level, I've asked him to double the rate.
       | 
       | $1k a year (deductible) is a bargain when Linux and FOSS is
       | literally your career.
       | 
       | (Disclosure: I let mine lapse after I retired from kernel
       | maintenance, but I'm thinking of renewing since I still get value
       | mainly be following links from HN)
        
       | mindcrime wrote:
       | I'm fine with this. LWN is a great value as it is and I don't
       | mind paying a little bit more.
        
       | mjb wrote:
       | LWN and Usenix are the two subscriptions I happily pay for, and
       | would be happy to pay more for. The quality of the content, and
       | flexibility around how to share it, is well worth supporting.
       | 
       | I also pay the ACM, and that one physically hurts me every year.
        
         | monkey_monkey wrote:
         | I rationalise the ACM membership cost as a cheaper way of
         | accessing the O'Reilly library.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-01-20 23:01 UTC)