- A Critique of the Balancing Metaphor in Privacy and Security — The arguments presented by this paper are built on two underlying assertions. The first is that the assessment of surveillance measures often entails a judgement of whether any loss in privacy is legitimised by a justifiable increase in security. However, one fundamental difference between privacy and security is that privacy has two attainable end-states (absolute privacy through to the absolute absence of privacy), whereas security has only one attainable end-state (while the absolute absence of security is attainable, absolute security is a desired yet unobtainable goal). The second assertion, which builds upon the first, holds that because absolute security is desirable, new security interventions will continuously be developed, each potentially trading a small measure of privacy for a small rise in security. When assessed individually each intervention may constitute a justifiable trade-off. However, when combined together, these interventions will ultimately reduce privacy to zero. (via Alistair Croll)
- ISP Interconnection and its Impact on Consumer Internet Performance (Measurement Lab) — In researching our report, we found clear evidence that interconnection between major U.S. access ISPs (AT&T, Comcast, CenturyLink, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon) and transit ISPs Cogent, Level 3, and potentially XO was correlated directly with degraded consumer performance throughout 2013 and into 2014 (in some cases, ongoing as of publication). Degraded performance was most pronounced during peak use hours, which points to insufficient capacity and congestion as a causal factor. Further, by noting patterns of performance degradation for access/transit ISP pairs that were synchronized across locations, we were able to conclude that in many cases degradation was not the result of major infrastructure failures at any specific point in a network, but rather connected with the business relationships between ISPs.
- The Emergence of Github as Collaborative Platform for Education (PDF) — We argue that GitHub can support much of what traditional learning systems do, as well as go beyond them by supporting collaborative activities.
- Mobile is Eating the World (A16Z) — mobile becoming truly ubiquitous, bringing opportunities to use the construct “X is eating Y.”
Tools to develop massively distributed applications.
Editor’s Note: At the Velocity Conference in Barcelona we launched “A Field Guide to the Distributed Development Stack.” Early response has been encouraging, with reactions ranging from “If I only had this two years ago” to “I want to give a copy of this to everyone on my team.” Below, Andrew Odewahn explains how the Guide came to be and where it goes from here.
As we developed Atlas, O’Reilly’s next-generation publishing tool, it seemed like every day we were finding interesting new tools in the DevOps space, so I started a “Sticky” for the most interesting-looking tools to explore.
At first, this worked fine. I was content to simply keep a list, where my only ordering criteria was “Huh, that looks cool. Someday when I have time, I’ll take a look at that,” in the same way you might buy an exercise DVD and then only occasionally pull it out and think “Huh, someday I’ll get to that.” But, as anyone who has watched DevOps for any length of time can tell you, it’s a space bursting with interesting and exciting new tools, so my list and guilt quickly got out of hand.
Making forking the norm
Forking another spec: generally less than ideal.
Spooning w another spec: weird.
Knifing another spec: generally indicative of larger issues
— вкαя∂εℓℓ (@briankardell) April 28, 2014
— Kip Hampton (@kiphampton) April 28, 2014
Free and Open Source software licenses make forking legal. Git makes forking easy. GitHub makes it easy to fork sociably. Can we just make this normal?
Meanwhile, in a reminder that specifications can fork too, Ian Hickson put his objections to the W3C forking a WHATWG spec on www-archive to make sure his complaints of plagiarism would be part of the permanent record. WHATWG specs are licensed CC0, so once again, it’s legal.
It seems to be a common pattern to want to grant rights, but only want other people to use those rights if they acknowledge our control. (I sometimes have similar tendencies, granted.) We hope that people will contribute to our works while recognizing our power and our ownership over those works. Even the fact that we have to choose licenses at the start of a project gives us a sense of ownership and control, often hiding the (excellent) lack of control that comes once those licenses are applied.
Alternatives and suggestions for candidates and companies to avoid tests
In part one we covered types of technical tests—their relative costs, and why organizations need to understand the costs to the candidates if they want to attract the right type of candidates, and at what point in the process to test.
We haven’t covered alternatives yet. Larger organizations have the benefit of HR or recruitment divisions to bear the brunt of the early cost of the recruitment process—they can call candidates individually to check out interpersonal skills and to make the candidates feel wanted. Smaller organizations don’t necessarily have this, but they do have the benefit of being more flexible. If the brunt of the recruitment process falls on developers (or tech leads, CTOs, or other people in the technical organization) then obviously these organizations are trying to keep the time costs down—every hour invested in recruitment is an hour not spent on coding the company’s money-making product. But these techies are also in a much better position to be able to judge a candidate, and don’t always need to rely on one channel (the technical test, for example) to perform this judgment. They have other alternatives.
Can version control manage content?
Web designers? Git? Github? Aren’t those for programmers? At Artifact, Christopher Schmitt showed designers how much their peers are already doing with Github, and what more they can do. Github (and the underlying Git toolset) changes the way that all kinds of people work together.
Sharing with Git
As amazing as Linux may be, I keep thinking that Git may prove to be Linus Torvalds’ most important contribution to computing. Most people think of it, if they think of it at all, as a tool for managing source code. It can do far more, though, providing a drastically different (and I think better) set of tools for managing distributed projects, especially those that use text.
Git tackles an unwieldy problem, managing the loosely structured documents that humans produce. Text files are incredibly flexible, letting us store everything from random notes to code of all kinds to tightly structured data. As awesome as text files are—readable, searchable, relatively easy to process—they tend to become a mess when there’s a big pile of them.
- Salesforce Architecture — Our search tier runs on commodity Linux hosts, each of which is augmented with a 640 GiB PCI-E flash drive which serves as a caching layer for search requests. These hosts get their data from a shared SAN array via an NFS file system. Search indexes are stored on the flash drive to enable greater performance for search throughput. Architecture porn.
- Gerrit Code Review (Github) — tool for doing code reviews on Github codebases. (via Chris Aniszczyk)
- Users vs Apps (Tim Bray) — the wrong thing being shared with the wrong people, even once, can ruin a trust relationship forever. Personally, I’m pretty hard-line about this one. I’m currently refusing to update the Android app from my bank, CIBC, because it wants access to my contacts. You know what the right amount of “social” content is in my relationship with my bank? Zero, that’s what.