Does this result in programs more frequently erroring/crashing because they can't allocate? I don't know how well many of the programs I frequently use on my desktop (Firefox, GNOME desktop, JVM + IntelliJ, Slack, etc.) handle allocation failures. I'm not sure they would do much better than crash, but I know the default OOM killer settings work well for me. About once a year a real runaway process (usually a throwaway program I'm working on) gets OOM-killed, and that's fine with me.
Java allowed to handle out-of-memory rather well if one wanted to even 25 years ago. Basically one allocated a buffer on a startup taking 5% of memory that the application was supposed to use and made all threads to catch the oom exception. When handling that the buffer would be released, GC would be forced and a special flag would be set asking app to cancel any memory-intensive tasks until enough memory would be released and the buffer can be allocated again. It worked extremely well.
Yeah, crash ballast is an extremely underrated tool.
It also works for the OOM killer: run a daemon with a child process that holds some fixed amount of memory. Adjust OOM scores of everything else on the system lower than the child. If the parent’s waitpid() returns due to an OOM kill, send an alert/shutdown nonessentials/sync buffers to disk and so on.
The approach I originally described provides a useful early warning system for that condition. It’s not perfect, but has proven useful and better than nothing many times.
> Does this result in programs more frequently erroring/crashing because they can't allocate?
I run Firefox, VSCodium with LSP, Discord, Signal and there's still space left for a game like CS2. I'm not a heavy user by any means.
> I'm not sure they would do much better than crash
I have yet to see a program that silently handles allocation failures and doesn't crash. These days everything is coded to crash if no memory :(
> About once a year a real runaway process (usually a throwaway program I'm working on) gets OOM-killed
In my case it killed system critical processes with no way to recover. With disabled overcommit, it freezes for a while (usually for a minute or two), I close some random program of my choosing and then see in Resource Monitor what's eating my ram.
I flew to Belfast in the mid-2000s. I don't remember the security screening as being that unusual (for an American), but the terminal architecture was interesting.
Hearing some of these stories of Belfast its hard to believe. Flew out of both Belfast International and Belfast City airports last year and they are by far the best airports I have ever had the luxury of travelling through.
Out of Belfast I flew into both Heathrow and Stanstead both are fucking miserable ordeals.
I have 2 Reolink PoE cameras, and they just hopped on the network with DHCP and I used a web browser to configure them. No app needed. I did install the app later, once the cameras were safely on their own VLAN, and I could connect to them by internal host name or IP address.
I bought Reolink PoE cameras because they support standard RTSP and I could put them on their own VLAN where they can't get to the Internet. I can still use the Reolink app to view them when I'm on the LAN, or through Wireguard when I'm not. I use ffmpeg to save streams to a big disk. Works great.
I do the same and it works well. But do you see the Reolink app hammering domains of the form p#p#.reolink.com? I have to kill the app between uses it it drains my phone's battery because of this.
I've never looked at what the Android app is doing on the network, but maybe I should. I usually just keep it open for a few minutes when I'm waiting for a delivery or I hear someone ring the doorbell, so I'm not too worried about it piping lots of video to Reolink HQ. I haven't noticed much of a battery drain having used it earlier in the day.
Yeah, this is my idea as well. Good to know that the Reolink app still works locally and via Wireguard, that means I'll have less UI to set up in HomeAssistant.
Same here. I used Debian back in the 90s, switched to Ubuntu for more regular releases, but the ads from apt were the final annoyance. Debian 12 has been excellent.
I hope they stay in it because I love my 1 Gbps Google Fiber service. Install was great, it's super reliable (compared to Spectrum cable Internet), and the price is nice. I don't even own a computer or switch with network ports that can do > 1 Gbps, but 20 to the home is impressive.
The only hosts you can talk to with that speed are other 25gbps customers, with custom hardware, and an ultra fast NAS or sending random bits.
I have 10gbps, also for nerd cred. 1/10/25gbps from this provider is all the same monthly cost, differing setup fees.
The advantage to 10gbps is I have a silent router (Mikrotik RB5009), and every 1gbps port is entirely independent. You will never have 1 machines activities slow another's.
Do I ever actually get 1gbps speeds? Yes, sometimes, for large downloads on XBOX. BitTorrent doesn't achieve this because your peers don't have that upload. Google drive doesn't achieve that because their VMs are probably shared 1gbps each.
But, Init7 has excellent peering vs other 1gbps fiber providers and no traffic shaping at all.
It depends on the locality. The city, county, and state may all impose taxes. In particular, cities sometimes opt to generate revenue by taxing specific services, such as cable TV. So a resident in City X pays $5 per month extra for cable TV, while someone in City Y pays $7.44 extra. Both of these cities allow just a single cable operator, and require that operator to collect the tax and remit it to them. But if you have satellite TV then you don’t pay the tax. And maybe City Y never updated the law to apply the tax to cable internet service, but City X did. So someone living in City X pays $5 per month if they have both cable TV and internet service (or either one alone), while someone in City Y only pays the tax if they have TV service. If all they have is internet service, then they pay nothing extra.
And if the service includes telephone service, then there will be a Federal Universal Service Fee, which pays for reduced–cost land–line telephone service for the poor. It’s like $0.11 per month per telephone line, IIRC.
The average customer might see two or three of these things on their bill. But it’s not uncommon to see a dozen either.
So it definitely depends on where the subscriber wants the service, and what service or services they subscribe to. None of this is really all that difficult to figure out, and these companies have already automated it. They are just complaining because they will have to raise their advertised prices, which naturally will lead to reduced sales. Currently they just lie through their teeth about their prices, and count on people being too lazy to cancel their service once they see the first month’s bill.
Interesting, for context in Australia almost all goods and services that aren’t billed based on usage must clearly outline total cost - if you order something you can expect the marked price to match the reciept (unless the receipt is less, common in retail discount offers)
We also don’t have tipping culture, you can tip, but it’s not an expectation. Though, the latter is slowly creeping in.
Yes, I understand that. In fact I would like to see us move in that direction. I think these new rules are definitely a step in the right direction.
However, put yourself in the position of someone selling internet service in the whole country of Australia. If you put out a television ad that will be seen by everybody, then you either cannot quote a price because every viewer could end up paying different taxes, or you must quote a price but put a footnote that mentions local taxes, or some other dodge. The new rules actually cover this case as well. In any situation where they show a generic price not including local taxes or other fees, the ISP must instead direct the consumer to a source that gives them a correct customized price (presumably a web page). They must also document the event, which is something else the ISPs are objecting to. I don’t know enough about it to say if that would be a good thing or not.
It’s the same with sales taxes too, btw. Every town and county has their own sales taxes, so advertised prices never include them. At least in that case each store will only ever need to charge a small number of tax rates so in principle it would be easy enough for the stores to print price tags that show how much tax would be collected for each item. Still, it was historically easier to leave the tax information off of the price tags and rely on the customer to simply remember the local sales tax rate (usually between 2% and 10%, except on tax–exempt products) so that’s what we still do.
On the other hand, gas prices always include the taxes. Historically gas taxes have had a much higher percentage rate (because they are taxed a fixed number of cents per gallon, rather than as a percentage of the price), so maybe gas stations just didn’t want customers to argue with the clerks.
Also Australian, when I went to the US and ordered a burger at McDonalds for $2 - I was so confused when they asked for more money after I handed them $2. Turns out they don't include taxes in the advertised price for some reason.
That's how Comcast works here in western Washington.
If you have non-internet service from them (such as TV, phone, or home security) there are plenty of fees on your bill which makes it more than the advertised price of your package, but if you just have internet the bill matches the advertised price.
> if you just have internet the bill matches the advertised price.
Until your fixed-rate introductory period ends. After that, watch the price creep up month by month. I've even seen very low-speed service become more pricey than high-speed service (possibly because it's no longer being advertised, so the rate doesn't have to look good).
Source: experience with a non-Comcast cable provider.
If you are on a contract then when the contract ends your fixed rate will jump from the contract fixed rate to the advertised fixed rate for month to month service.
If you are not on a contract internet is fixed rate at the advertised plan rate.
For example if I go to their site and pretend do be someone moving to my area and look at their plans for my neighborhood my current plan without a 2 year contract is $73/month, or $63/month if you go paperless and use use autopay. That's the same price I am paying as a long time customer on that plan.
With a 2 year contract it is $45/month or $35/month if you go paperless and use autopay for years 1 and 2, and then goes to up to the prices from the previous paragraph.
It really is that simple. Plan price, minus $10/month for paperless and autopay, minus promotional discount if on a contract.
When you add TV or voice then you get things that won't necessarily be fixed rate. There's a broadcast TV fee and if you TV package includes sports channels a regional sports fee. If you have voice then there are state fees. There are also state taxes on TV and voice.
Yup, I've seen this myself. My introductory plan at 69.99/mo (or 79 I can't recall) was good for the first 6 months or maybe a year, and then it steadily crept up in $10 increments every quarter or so for the next 4 years I had their service.
To be fair, the plan also went from 200 megs to 1 gig over that timeframe in similar incremental increases, so that was kinda nice.
Ziply Fiber is the same way. $70 exactly every month, 1 page bill. Trivially easy to understand. Symmetrical gigabit, no data caps. No ipv6 though which sucks.
Left Comcast/Xfinity the moment I had a better alternative. I still get door to door Xfinity folks trying to sell me more expensive, shittier service.
