Samsung Acquires Joyent - <AUTHOR> https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent-a-ctos-perspective <comment><USER2> Cloud orchestration, Container Orchestration, Kubernetes... I think I am getting old and starting to understand how my parents feel about technology.

I am developer, but mostly work on desktop apps, or embedded devices or lataly on some MVC applications. But reading things like

"A Container-Native Stack for Modern Applications and Operations Increase development velocity while simplifying operations."

I have no idea what should I imagine and what is it good for...

any good introduction or explanation into what is it they actually do?

<comment><USER3> So, you build a web app and it gets popular. It needs one load balancer, 5 app servers, at least two database nodes for replication, a redis cluster for caching and queuing, an elasticsearch cluster for full text search, and a cluster of job worker servers to do async stuff like processing images, etc.

In the ancient past, like when I'm from, you'd write up a few different bash scripts to help you provision each server type. But setting this all up, you'd still have to run around and create 20 servers and provision them into one of 5 different types, etc.

Then there's chef/puppet, which takes your bash script and makes it a little more maintainable. But there are still issues: huge divide between dev/prod environments, and adding 5 new nodes ASAP is still tedious.

Now you have cloud and container orchestration. Containers are like the git repos of the server world. You build a container to run each of your apps (nginx, redis, etc), configure each once (like coding and committing), and then they work identically on dev and prod after you launch them (you can clone/pull onto hardware). And what's more, since a container image is pre- built, it launches on metal in a matter of seconds, not minutes. All the apt- get install crap was done at image build time, not container launch time.

Things are a lot easier now, but you still have a problem. You're scaling to 30, maybe 50 different servers running 6 or 7 different services. More and more you _want_ to treat your hardware as a generic compute cloud, but you can't escape that, even with docker, your servers have identities and personalities. You still need to sit and think about which of your 50 servers to launch a container on, and make sure it's under the correct load balancer, etc.

That's where Kubernetes steps in; it's a level of abstraction higher than docker, and works at the cluster level. You define services around your docker containers, and let Kubernetes initialize the hardware, and abstract it away into a giant compute cloud, and then all you have to do is tell kubernetes to scale a certain service up and down, and it automatically figures out which servers to take the action on and modifies your load balancer for that service accordingly.

At the scale of "a few servers", Kubernetes doesn't help much. At the scale of dozens or hundreds, it definitely does. "Orchestration" isn't just a buzzword, it's the correct term here; all those containers and services and pieces of hardware DO need to be wrangled. In the past it was a full time sysadmin job, now it's just a Kubernetes or Fleet config file.

Disclosure: I'm currently writing a book on Docker. Disclaimer: I have not had my coffee yet.

Edit: Since someone asked, I'm writing a book called "Complete Docker" which will be published by Apress. I don't know the exact pub date that Apress will launch it on, but I expect it'll be available in October.

<comment><USER2> Wau thanks, that is an excellent explanation. I appreciate that it start with things I know and understand ("so you build a web app"/"bash scripts"/"puppet") and builds on that explaining what problems each consecutive steps /layer of abstraction/ solves.

Now I wonder.. how many projects actually needs these kind of solution when even StackOverflow can do without it (they are in the range of few servers)? I would imagine it would be only few top popular web apps/services, but by popularity of these posts it looks like it is probably a lot more...

<comment><USER3> How many people actually _need_ it? Nobody! We managed to run servers for years without containers or orchestration tools. Docker is a new technology.

Does it make things _better_ , though? Yes. Yes it does.

Kubernetes was designed at Google where they reaaaaally feel their scale problems day to day.

I see Docker/Kube/CoreOS/ etc as the natural evolution of where we were already going. Bash -> puppet -> vagrant -> docker -> kubernetes. Less abstract to more abstract.

So it's actually "only" an incremental evolution in terms of managing the server ecosystem. But it's a revolutionary improvement in how we _think_ about server ecosystems, which is why many people struggle with Docker et al at first; it's a brand new mental model.

<comment><USER4> I'd like to add that this isn't necessarily even about huge scale. It's about scaling deployment patterns too, which is different than scaling services.

Sometimes you need to have the ability to run more services when your "web- scale", but even if you're not at that point, scaling how you deploy new versions, and new services is still important.

Tools like docker, and Kubernetes really help with the application delivery aspect, and really enable you to rapidly iterate on your project.

You might have a site with 100-1000 users, not huge by any means, and 1 server could probably handle all of your needs. But once you start adding other components, perhaps redis, or a runtime like nodejs, those can all be managed, but if you need to rapidly iterate, something like Kubernetes/docker can make updating or deploying these easier in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In case anyone's curious, I blogged about the backstory of the acquisition.[1] tl;dr: We at Joyent are elated, and we believe that this will be a huge win for our customers, for our technologies and for the communities that they serve!

[1] [https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent-a- ctos-p...](https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent-a-ctos- perspective)

<comment><USER6> Congratulations. I hope Samsung nurtures the technical excellence at Joyent.

Please, please continue to develop your public cloud offerings. Having options other that the myopic, me-too, feature-matching, monoculture that is AWS/GCE/Azure is incredibly important.

That said, for my use profile, you guys need to work on your price competitiveness. Hopefully Samsung will inject the necessary cash for economies-of-scale.

<comment><USER7> > Congratulations. I hope Samsung nurtures the technical excellence at Joyent.

I'm sure they will. They are a top contributor to open source:

[http://linuxcontrib-inn.rhcloud.com/](http://linuxcontrib-inn.rhcloud.com/)

<comment><USER8> Why is your link relevant? Joyent = Illumos, which is a fork of open-Solaris, not Linux at all.

<comment><USER9> The point being that Samsung give a shit about contributing to open-source projects at all.

<comment><USER10> The Samsung TV I got came with a pirated copy of linux, which is quite a feat (came with a copy of the GPL 3, which is a clear breach of the GPL 2 only license of linux).

<comment><USER11> Oh. I thought you could include v2 code in v3 codebases but not vice versa? I may need to go through my projects if that's really not the case.

<comment> vertex-four Linux has a specific amendment to the GPLv2 stating that it must always be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2, not the GPLv3 or any later version.

<comment><USER12> Honest question, how is anyone expected to keep up with all of this? Software licenses are not all that interesting to me, I just like making things, but now I have to also read pages and pages of legalize for every single dependency. I thought it would be good enough to know most mainstream licenses, but apparently Linux has a modified version of the GPLv2? I would never notice that, nor would I trust myself to even comprehend it properly.

It's starting to feel like I need to consult a lawyer before I could ever publish an open source project, and that's never going to happen. I'd rather just stop publishing.

<comment> vertex-four > apparently Linux has a modified version of the GPLv2? I would never notice > that, nor would I trust myself to even comprehend it properly.

The amendment is actually the first paragraph of the COPYING file. If you modify any of the terms of the license directy, you have to remove the preamble and refer to it as something other than the GPL.

The other option for modifying the GPL is to distribute a separate LICENSE file alongside it stating something like "this software is released under the GPL, except for <specific changes>". When this happens, there's almost always an FAQ somewhere on the internet describing what the changes are intended to mean.

So, basically - check the source files to see if they mention a license, then check if there's a file named LICENSE, then check if there's a file named COPYING. One of these should always point you to the right license.

Additionally, as a point, it's not actually a modification of the license, merely a clarification - see section 9 of the GPLv2, which states that the program must explicitly state that it is usable under later versions of the GPL to be usable under later versions of the GPL. The boilerplate text that GNU give you to put at the top of each source code file does that by default, but, it's not required.

<comment><USER13> Which in turn means that the only way to check whether code you're using is GPLv2-only and cannot be combined with GPLv3 code is to check the license header in every source file. I guess that's not too hard - I mean, Linux only has 40,000 or so source files?

<comment><USER14> It's not too hard because it applies to the whole project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Samsung is a typical asian electronics company (has a hardware focused history and very good at it, but doesn't understand or respect software). I'm so glad that node.js is not under Joyent control.

<comment><USER16> I am not sure what Samsung being Asian has to do with anything :)

This is good news for node.js since what this means is more money gets poured into node.js development.

For example Microsoft pouring money into JS seems to have lead directly to Typescript.

<comment><USER17> I have no personal experience working for Samsung but know quite a few who did work for their US team and most don't have a positive experience. I also know some who worked for other South Korean companies. Lets just say the Korean work culture is quite different than in a typical US company. Hopefully the Joyent guys will be shielded from all this.

<comment><USER18> I worked with two project managers from their US team STA (Samsung Technologies America). One was OK. The other one was a fucking psychopath. I'm talking about needlessly and viciously backstabbing all in range. Totally unbelievable. Never seen anything like it, and god help me I hope I never see it again.

Later, I visited their HQ in Korea and met some of their Indian and Korean development teams. They were competent but the work culture was toxic. People were expected to attend 11PM daily review meetings where the issues list was painfully re-read pointlessly and nothing at all was achieved. Koreans were expected to live in numbered company compounds, catch a numbered company bus and ascend to a numbered floor in a numbered company skyscraper after an airport security style physical check. Smoking allowed strictly twice per day in a designated corner of the compound. All movement is tracked. Psychotic Confucian management style. I honestly thought to myself: if this is a vision of the future, I want no part of it.

<comment><USER19> Then you should see the japanese way of working, it's also quite fun! I believe this is common in most of asia. I have worked in China and it's not quite different at all from what you're saying.

<comment><USER20> Working in China is way different from Japan/Korea, at least for the companies I've been exposed to. There is much more freedom in how you get things done, there is less hierarchy, there is more value placed on programmers (which is why Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese seem to come here to work in spite of the pollution).

<comment><USER19> China is definitely way better than Japan. Maybe imitation of all western products year over year could help them to have more western way of working style and etc but still culture is workaholic, robot like obeying, not criticising at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hey, maybe Joyent can finally afford to refund the people who supported it when it was textdrive and then went back on their word! Snarky I know but I'm still bitter about how it was all handled..

<comment><USER22> As a fellow early textdrive supporter, I'm pretty happy with the value I got out of the deal. I'm still using my free strongspace account 10ish years later. I think there was some email about a free hosting account I could theoretically use with some company, but I never looked into it. Honestly, textdrive's hosting was never really of a quality I could use in a professional context anyway. I understand some bitterness, but any "lifetime" deal has to be taken with a pretty big grain of salt, and I'm pretty happy about what I got for the money.

<comment><USER23> > I think there was some email about a free hosting account I could > theoretically use with some company, but I never looked into it.

We were offered either one or three free years of hosting on a Joyent SmartMachine, depending on what your initial investment was. After this free trial, you would be converted to a regular customer.

Adding my voice to the bitter-parade. Joyent wouldn't be where they are today without us early bootstrap investors. It was basically a Kickstarter campaign before Kickstarter existed. Not only do I feel like I failed to receive my early investor benefits, but WORSE off was how the whole situation was handled. We had to beg and plead to get our data back. The company essentially went dark to all of their oldest, most loyal customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hats off Samsung. You have just acquired a truly world class Engineering team.

Congrats to all my former colleagues who are absolutely amazing at their jobs and wonderful people to work with. Samsung looks like a very good match. Hope the transition goes well.

<comment><USER25> Same. Great working with the entire engineering team at Joyent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Joyent raised over $125M in venture [0], and no mention of a price? Wonder how the employees faired in this...

[0] [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/joyent](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/joyent)

</comment><comment><USER27> Forgive my ignorance but can someone explain how Joyent's acquisition moves Samsung towards their strategic objectives? In other words, how are they going to exploit this technology (and brain gain)?

<comment><USER28> From the CTO's blog post, it seems to me that Samsung became interested in Joyent not for its most famous product, Node.js, but for its new product, Manta, which is some sort of serverless, distributed, data-storage and processing service ([https://www.joyent.com/manta](https://www.joyent.com/manta)). Manta might be well-suited for the new hotness, the Internet of Things.

So that's how I saw it progressing. Samsung was looking into how to get in on the Internet of Things, stumbled across Manta, and it went from there.

<comment><USER29> Manta seems like they are throwing the kitchen sink at those problems, tons of containers, proprietary OS, proxies, etc.

If you want to store objects in a distributed way, why not just use something like RethinkDB, which has proxying/sharding etc. built in? RethinkDB even has a way to execute code with 'js'.

Or for serverless processing, why not AWS lambda or the crop of clones?

<comment><USER30> Manta doesn't run on a proprietary OS, but runs on SmartOS, a distribution of illumos [1][2]. In fact, almost everything at Joyent is open source, including all of Manta [3]. As for why not anything else, Manta has been around since 2013 [4], before other similar solutions, and allows you to run arbitrary programs on your data. As an example, some of our customers run ffmpeg on videos that they upload, to produce different variants to then store in Manta.

[1] [https://github.com/joyent/smartos- live](https://github.com/joyent/smartos-live)

[2] [https://github.com/joyent/illumos- joyent](https://github.com/joyent/illumos-joyent)

[3] [https://github.com/joyent/manta](https://github.com/joyent/manta)

[4] [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/joyent_object_store/](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/joyent_object_store/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I always thought Microsoft/Google or the likes would acquire Joyent as it is good product fit. Microsoft chose linkedin instead :) For Samsung this is all about IoT .Samsung wants to own both the devices and backend. A good move IMHO

<comment><USER32> MS already has Azure, with an infrastructure built on their windows core... Not to mention having more services... and while Joyent's Docker story is really nice, MS seems to be heading in a very similar direction with the Windows Subsystem for Linux as Joyent took with SmartOS/Solaris, it's a poor tech fit.

I'm not sure where this will take things with Samsung, likely backend services to support their own "store" on their devices separate from Android. If it's internalized, I only hope they release more of their infrastracture tooling, which is very cool to say the least.

<comment><USER33> There is a world of difference between a new, untested implementation of Linux system call translation to a _very_ different type of Kernel on a desktop class operating system than the version on Illumos. The best thing Microsoft could do with their cloud is burn it to the ground and start again with Joyent's tech.

<comment><USER34> Joyent's tech is very good, don't me wrong, but I think this is a bit harsh.

\- lx-branded zones and window's new layer are both doing system call translation---you're post doesn't contradict this but doesn't make it clear either.

\- At some point lx-branded zones where equally untested.

\- "Desktop class" is misleading because NT was designed for servers. Now yes Windows as a whole is hamstrung by a business model putting desktops and backwards-comparability first, but by definition the Linux layer can ignore a lot of Win32 precedent.

\- Yes Illumos is Unix and NT isn't, but the difficulty in translating linux systems calls lies not with the ones backing posix-interfaces, but the Linux- specific ones. (Joyent devs can give you some great horror stories here.) It may be a bit harder with NT but it was hard already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Luckily they did not acquire Node.js

edit: I should have been more specific.. when an open source project is under a company's wing and it gets acquired, you don't know what can happen, even under MIT. Look at express recently. Since it's the under the Node Foundation now, this is not a big deal. Had it happened a short time ago, there may have been further turmoil in the community.

<comment><USER36> Given that Node.js has always been MIT licensed, that's impossible. That's one reason _why_ it had a liberal license; just listen to Cantrill's Oracle rants sometime to get a better idea.

<comment><USER37> Cantrill advocated the fact that CDDL was copyleft as a good thing[1] (it's a bad license overall, but the point is the same) specifically mentioning that the fact that Oracle couldn't use new DTrace and ZFS improvements from the community was a good thing. I agree (though I much prefer the GPL).

So actually all of Cantrill's worries with Oracle exist with Node.js's license. I am sad when I see large free software projects licensed under MIT, we are doing ourselves a disservice by allowing proprietary software to take advantage of the free software we've developed.

[1] It's part of his Fork Yeah! talk about the fork that is illumos.

<comment><USER38> There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the most vile, fascist license out there.

On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux. I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa), but I'm even more happy that Linux isn't. <\--- I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else.

<comment><USER37> > There are people out there like myself who are convinced that GPL is the > most vile, fascist license out there.

Not proprietary software? Not "open source" licenses that don't allow modification (which is also proprietary)? The GPL? The thing that gave us free software in the modern world? Well, that's certainly one opinon.

> On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL.

The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible _it will be modified to make it enforceable_. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective.

> I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos > community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized > by GNU and Linux.

What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original.

> I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa)

Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against).

> I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own > and not of anyone else.

Your position is also wrong.

<comment><USER39> >What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original.

This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork. When BSD/MIT/(other permissively licensed code) is used, modified, and re-licensed to GPL, the permissive project can't take those improvements without also re-licensing. The CDDL indeed saved illumos from being cannibalized and disappearing as a community. Had its features been easily ported to Linux without a licencing problem, the project would probably not have survived, simply due to the fact that there would have been few reasons to stick with it. It's not just about what code is out there, and you should know that.

>Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against).

Only in regard to changes to DTrace and ZFS. Still totally fine to build proprietary versions of BSDs that include those pieces.

I won't go so far as the grandparent post here, but I'm one of those developers that couldn't give half a care about "user freedom". It's nice to have source as a developer, but my motivation has never been "freedom", insofar as using and understanding the software, so I understand where he's coming from in his complaints about the GPL. As a developer, it's more constraining than the permissive licenses out there. To some, that's a good thing.

<comment><USER37> > >What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code > and modifies it? No damage is done to the original.

> This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the > project than a proprietary fork.

... Who is it worse for? First of all, that almost never happens. But for users, there's no difference (if anything it's an improvement because they now have better protection of their freedom) and the original developers can just ignore the fork or merge the code and change license (which isn't possible with a proprietary fork).

> The CDDL indeed saved illumos from being cannibalized and disappearing as a > community. Had its features been easily ported to Linux without a licencing > problem, the project would probably not have survived, simply due to the > fact that there would have been few reasons to stick with it.

I think that's a very irrational fear. GNU/Linux took plenty of BSD code and BSD still exists, many different projects take ideas from each other -- it's what's called "collaboration".

> I won't go so far as the grandparent post here, but I'm one of those > developers that couldn't give half a care about "user freedom".

It's disappointing that you don't want to _actually_ make the world a better place (not in the standard bullshit silicon valley sense) by giving people freedom.

<comment><USER36> _It 's disappointing that you don't want to actually make the world a better place_

Self-righteous much?

This is embarrassing.

<comment><USER37> You think the world isn't better as a result of GNU/Linux existing? I personally think that GNU/Linux has had a positive impact on the world, and without it the world would be a worse place. Sure, my impact as a single developer is very small, but I want to help a movement that I agree with.

<comment><USER38> Linux destroyed so many good things, and some projects like SmartOS now have to spend major effort in educating the populace at large on why SmartOS is a better solution for the cloud and why data integrity and correctness of operation are important. And all of that just because GNU/Linux is _argumentum ad populum_. What a nightmare.

<comment><USER37> > Linux destroyed so many good things

Would you prefer Windows? Because that's where the world was heading in the 90s. History happened, and what it shows is that Linux arose at a time when _EVERYONE_ thought that Windows was going to steal Unix's throne. It's amazing you have such negativity about a piece of software.

<comment><USER38> > Would you prefer Windows?

I would prefer sgi IRIX 6.5, but that's dead. In the absence of IRIX, illumos and SmartOS are the next best thing, so that is my next preference.

> Because that's where the world was heading in the 90s. > History happened, > and what it shows is that Linux arose at a time when EVERYONE thought that > Windows was going to steal Unix's throne.

Not everyone. I went through the entire '90's using Sun SPARC, sgi, hp PA-RISC and Commodore Amiga computers, and neither did _Sun Microsystems_. Didn't touch an intel-based PC until 2002, when I put together my first one, and even my current intel based PC runs Solaris 10.

 _Sun Microsystems_ was the only company which refused to bow, and continued developing Solaris. And while we know that eventually that company died, the OS lives on, and is being very actively developed, with new features added, and new technology invented.

> It's amazing you have such negativity about a piece of software.

You would also have it if your telephone rang with priority 1 incidents at two o' clock in the morning because Linux has a problem which I would not have had if I were using SmartOS. Then you'd have bonus negativity when you'd have to log into a crisis bridge and explain to a whole bunch of angry managers (who don't understand a thing about their decision to use Linux) that the application broke because Linux killed the service when it ran out of memory and oh by the way the data is also corrupted because the filesystem is a design from the '90's of the past century. And no I cannot find out why the application ran out of memory because the OS is locked up and when I reset it, I cannot get a core dump for analisys because I do not have adequate tools for that on Linux.

Computers and UNIX are my life calling, and since I am passionate about them, I spend extraordinary amounts of time working on them and researching them. Even what little free / spare time I have, I spend doing computer research and system engineering. So when according to my research and experience, something as inferior as GNU/Linux starts to push out a better solution just because of ignorance, it is only logical I have developed an intense hatred of it. It is messing with something I hold very dear, illumos and SmartOS - it's messing with UNIX.

And when I cannot find any SmartOS jobs where I live because every single ad says Linux-blah-blah Linux, you bet I hate it even more, since working on it, _I get to experience first hand just how bad Linux is_. When I'm forced to suffer because I am ordered to use Linux, and have problems I would not have if I had been on SmartOS, it's becomes personal, and it also becomes not just personal, but _professional_.

At home I have SmartOS and do not have a single issue I have at work, because I am using a different OS, a better one, and I love every microsecond developing on it and using it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to do some more software engineering. On GNU/Linux.

<comment><USER37> > Not everyone.

BSD wouldn't have been free software without Stallman (he convinced them to release their changes under a free software license publicly). Same with OpenSolaris (the idea of free software wouldn't have existed). So, GNU was central to us not being in a world dominated by proprietary software.

But GNU was never going to be ready (Hurd will never be finished), so Linux offered us the opportunity to live in freedom. And people ended up using it. Yes, the kernel Linux has _many_ problems. But without it, we would be living in a much worse world than even the most broken of Linux interfaces and semantics. But GNU/Linux definitely was a saviour for Unix.

Yes, Sun was still holding on to Unix. But they were the only one (apart from Be, which folded soon after). But do you really thing they would've ever created OpenSolaris if GNU hadn't come into being and GNU/Linux hadn't started to dominate the market? I doubt it. History is odd like that.

<comment><USER38> > Yes, the kernel Linux has _many_ problems. But without it, we would be > living in a much worse world than even the most broken of Linux interfaces > and semantics. But GNU/Linux definitely was a saviour for Unix.

Maybe _you_ would be living in a much worse world, if your entire world up to that point in time consisted of Microsoft(R) Windows(R) and an intel based PC _tin pail_.

I was fine with using a binary only version of Solaris, IRIX, and HP-UX; so long as I could get those gratis, along with compilers and software RAID, that was fine by me, as I had no interest in building my own OS at that point in time (unlike now). I also grew up on Commodore computers, where, when one bought a computer, it would come with detailed schematics, and the hardware was documented in detail[1][2].

I can only offer you empathy for the world you grew up in, but that does not give you the right, nor are you correct in assuming, that everyone else lacked the same freedoms you lacked: not everybody grew up in the United States which has fascist copyright laws. The country where I grew up did not have any copyright laws, and if it weren't for that, it would still be in the dark ages of Informatics and computer science, and I would not have ever become a computer professional. Other countries, for example Sweden and Spain, still have lax copyright laws, and thank goodness for that. The point is, don't make the error of assuming that the entire world was mis-fortunate and lacked freedom in this sense.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Hardware-Reference-Manual- technical-r...](https://www.amazon.com/Hardware-Reference-Manual-technical- reference/dp/0201181576/)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Amiga-Memory-Kernel-Reference- Manual/...](https://www.amazon.com/Amiga-Memory-Kernel-Reference- Manual/dp/0201181878/)

<comment><USER37> > I was fine with using a binary only version of Solaris, IRIX, and HP-UX; so > long as I could get those gratis,

That's not the point at all. You didn't have any software freedom -- how did you modify your software? It's great that you could distribute it in your country, but you didn't have the means to practically modify software.

Also, gratis isn't the point. I don't care if I have to pay for GNU/Linux or any other software, I just care about whether or not I get software freedom as a result.

> not everybody grew up in the United States which has fascist copyright laws

I didn't grow up in the US.

> don't make the error of assuming that the entire world was mis-fortunate and > lacked freedom in this sense.

You lacked the practical freedom to modify software (okay, so you didn't have copyright but if you don't have the source then you can't _pracically_ modify your software without spending far too much time reverse-engineering it). I hate to break it to you, but you did lack freedom.

<comment><USER38> > You didn't have any software freedom -- how did you modify your software?

In a program called a debugger, which back then was known as _a monitor_. You pressed a button, and the monitor was started from a cartridge, or you loaded a monitor, and then you loaded the machine code. And then you stepped through that disassembled code, and then you inserted _a breakpoint_ in a strategic place. And when the program would stop execution, you'd _consider the state of the program_ , and then you'd make the desired modifications, either by changing the existing processor instructions, or by adding your own code and hooking it in. Worked for an entire generation of crackers, I don't see what the big deal is.

So in that sense, there was no closed source, as nobody can really hide machine code, and believe you me, people have tried, and then some! But to a _cracker_ , to a really good _coder_ , every piece of code is _open source_ , because there is _nowhere to hide_.

 _A much bigger deal was if you were not capable of this, because it meant you were a lamer and didn 't make the cut._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm sorry but how is this a good fit? What is the synergy here? This particular sentence is incredibly vapid:

"By bringing these two companies together we are creating the opportunity to develop and bring to market vertically integrated mobile and IoT services and solutions that deliver extraordinary simplicity and value to our customers."

</comment><comment><USER40> As I toil away on a node based project that is interfacing with Samsung's Artik platform (both the Artik 10 board and Artik Cloud) I finally decided to call it a night -- check HN real quick -- and discover that Samsung is buying the original stewards of node. I almost thought the lack of sleep was putting me into psychosis...

</comment><comment><USER41> Well done guys on staying solvent longer than the market could stay irrational!

</comment><comment><USER42> So the biggest phone manufacturer now owns a lot of Node.js expertise. Hopefully that leads to more JS in mobile!

<comment><USER43> I had a friend ask why the Oneplus one 3 could possibly need 6GB of RAM. Thank you for providing a possible answer! :)

<comment><USER32> Well, buffering 4K video, while running other active services in the background... finally broke down and installed FB messenger again, and it's definitely better, but there are a lot of consistent apps that tend to be very bloated as it is.

Given how well React Native tends to work, and I have to be honest, I like the ecosystem structure better than most apps I've worked on in general, I can see it actually working out better in many cases.

<comment><USER44> > finally broke down and installed FB messenger again,

Prob not great for more advanced messenger functionality but Face Slim ([https://github.com/indywidualny/FaceSlim](https://github.com/indywidualny/FaceSlim)) does notifications and simple/group chats fairly well.

<comment><USER32> What sucks is I was perfectly happy with fb web, until they started cutting features in mobile (can't post to a friend's wall, can't do a lot of things now). The biggest issue is FB the app didn't respect the environment/usability settings for extra large fonts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is John Gruber's nightmare :) (worked at Joyent before Daring Fireball)

<comment><USER46> It looks like Daring Fireball is still hosted on Joyent, soon to be Samsung.

[https://twitter.com/gruber/status/560507384536498176](https://twitter.com/gruber/status/560507384536498176)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> As a Korean American who also has worked at Samsung headquarters, I think it's more of bad news than good news, no matter how Joyent wants to spin it.

Its corporate culture only allows the most cunning, politically savvy person to stay alive and move up the rank, and thus most executives (all if I limit it to small sample of executives I've personally met) fit that model.

And shit literally flows downwards, where goals/promises set by them would be pushed downwards and engineers have to take the burden.

It doesn't help that Korean society is very hierarchal and based on Confucius principles, where you don't usually challenge older persons and/or someone higher in the rank. This is one example that describes serious problem - [http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/asiana-airlines-crash-a- cockp...](http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/asiana-airlines-crash-a-cockpit- culture-problem/).

For those of you who are intrigued and have time, I suggest watching Misaeng with English subtitles ([https://www.viki.com/tv/20812c-incomplete- life](https://www.viki.com/tv/20812c-incomplete-life)). Samsung isn't as bad, but the same hierarchy, verbal abuse, social dynamics, and strict rules on paper format exist.

The best outcome would be if they leave Joyent's management and culture alone. But I doubt it.

I also have the first-hand experience of their applying the same "consumer electronics" mentality to completely different business which required high- touch sales.

There is no denying success of Samsung - multi-billion, international corporation. However, Samsung is only good at generating quality hardware products at mass scale. There have not been success in any sort of software and services. Perhaps they are trying to expand beyond their strengths, and I applaud that effort and they actually do need it, since it's only matter of time Chinese companies will catch up and produce as quality products as Samsung, as Samsung did to Sony. I hope it bears fruits. I hope they can allow Joyent to succeed and thrive, and learn from that.

I will see what happens next few years.

</comment><comment><USER48> Is this the same company that sponsored the development of Node JS?

<comment><USER36> Joyent funded most of node.js' development since 2010. Once node became popular and competing companies appeared, with the commensurate agitation and political fallout, Joyent became less involved with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> "Joyent will operate as a standalone company under Samsung and continue providing cloud infrastructure and software services to its customers"

</comment><comment><USER50> Best wishes to all at Joyent. Thanks for all your work in the community over the last few years, particularly with node.js. Hopefully Samsung will give you the resources and reach to go on to better things in future.

</comment><comment><USER51> So this is the moment where everyone with a sufficient device / install marketshare decides they need to buy cloud expertise?

 _" Samsung will immediately benefit from having direct access to Joyent's technology, leadership and talent. Likewise, Joyent will be able to take advantage of Samsung's scale of business, global footprint, financial muscle and its brand power."_

<comment><USER52> Samsung is (and has been) terrified that their handset business will be slaughtered in the race to the bottom of the hardware industry. They tried to create their own OS to give themselves an edge over other Android manufacturers.

Their fears have come true (and now it's even happening to Apple). Hardware is an incredibly difficult, risky business, and differentiation is now in the services/software arena. That's why Samsung, in particular, needs this acquisition (and others like it).

<comment><USER51> One thing that I never understood was how the Android hardware ecosystem never saw contributing resources to developing more efficiently abstracted core Linux + Android support for their hardware compatibility challenges as a competitive advantage.

Disclaimer: I'm not involved in that space, so maybe they've started?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> SmartOS will be on ARM within 12 months. Calling it.

<comment><USER54> It's pretty much welded to x86 and it's entire design is server-only. It'd be much, much harder to port than just using Android.

<comment><USER55> Android on servers, like Linux? SmartOS on Arm servers would probably make a lot of sense, given that Samsung might then have a vertically integrated infrastructure: mainboard/chipset, cpu, ram, ssd and software all made by Samsung for Samsung?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This is great news for on-prem object storage. I look forward to seeing how big Samsung is able to go with Manta.

</comment><comment><USER57> If anyone has a good background, what exactly does Joyent have that is so valuable?

It seems that NodeJS has moved out of Joyent. They have hosted container support that seems to run on solaris, which seems interesting, but a bit too much of buzz-wordy from their website.

I am not very familiar with this, so will be great if someone can explain a little bit. I read the comments around orchestration, but am more interested in Joyent's value proposition.

</comment><comment><USER58> Congrats Bryan.

If anybody deserve it, it's you guys.

</comment><comment><USER59> I wonder how much for.

</comment><comment><USER60> Well that sucks. They had a good run, but Samsung's business culture is probably going to ruin them. Just check out some of the stories of their internal software engineering process.

</comment><comment><USER61> Can anyone shed some light (speculate, perhaps) on Samsung's strategy here? Just seems like an odd pairing to me.

</comment><comment><USER62> I wonder what would Samsung gain from an IaaS kind of company. Do they have an IaaS product? Or is it for internal use?

</comment><comment><USER63> wow, Joyent. Took me a bit to remember what they were doing in the early early days since we're multiple generations or pivots or focus-shifts on now......but it was Textdrive/Textile/Textpattern CMS. Ha. Different times. At least some of that still out there in OSS Land

</comment><comment><USER64> (Thin sans-serif body text means you hate your readers.)

</comment><comment><USER65> Next up some SmartOS desktop / mobile builds

</comment><comment><USER66> One company with all-male board & management team buys another company with all-male board & management team.

</comment><comment><USER67> Ok... Let's start on iojs 7!

</comment><comment><USER68> Thought this said Joylent. Was confused.

<comment><USER69> That would be spacex acquires joylent

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Good luck on your incredible journey.

<comment><USER71> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913723](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913723) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Great news and good acquisition as well. Great work Samsung!!!!!</comment>


White House presses Russia to expel Snowden; sharp words for China - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-security-obama-idUSBRE95N17620130624

<comment><USER2> _His failures to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States, not to advance Internet freedom and free speech._

This kind of logic baffles me.

<comment><USER3> Is he wrong though? He fled to a country that has a "Great Firewall" and Internet censors and then to a country where journalists are routinely killed for opposing Putin. Isn't Pussy Riot _still_ in prison?

Most people are not hypocritical about principles they care deeply about, so it's fair to ask whether Internet freedom is itself the principle Snowden is concerned about (in which case, why allow for hypocrisy), or whether it's something else entirely. After all one thing people pretty much can't say about RMS is that the man doesn't stand behind his principles. (edited to fix verb tense)

Now I'm even starting to be confused about what precisely Snowden's motives are. On some topics he talks about how people in general have rights, then he starts talking about how he's worried about _America_ and _Americans_ specifically as if he's a patriot that doesn't care as much about the rest of the world. He talks about violating 4th Amendment rights and needing warrants and then says that you can't get a fair trial in America.

<comment><USER4> Yes, he's wrong. The logic doesn't work. Supposed human rights abuses in the US don't actually have much to do with abuses in Russia; there's little the US could have done to affect the outcome for Pussy Riot. If the conditions aren't somehow causally related, then they're independent, and the onus isn't on Snowden to account for every independent human rights abuse in the world.

I've actually been more aggravated by this argument coming from the "other side". When it was announced that Snowden was heading for Ecuador, Human Rights Watch (among others) began posting to Twitter about Ecuador's terrible record with press freedom (shortened: there is freedom of the press in Ecuador as long as the press isn't criticizing the Correa administration). People immediate set about slamming HRW for drawing attention to Ecuador's problems without accounting for every problem in the US.

Same problem: if Ecuador is jailing journalists, seizing their property, or even torturing and killing them --- all things alleged by human rights groups about Ecuador --- that's a problem regardless of what the US is doing.

Similarly, if the NSA is unlawfully stretching the FISA process to surveil Americans, that's something worth publicizing no matter how many journalists Russia and China kill.

I have a lot of the same problems with the Snowden story that you do, but I was disheartened to read that Carney had made that argument today.

<comment><USER3> Well, I do agree that independent events can be treated independently.

I think the one big thing I can't get around is the cognitive dissonance of wanting more of the 'rule of law' around things like FISA but then globe- hopping because the 'rule of law' has become inconvenient. Certainly where the law is not being followed that should be fixed, and good on Snowden for noting that. But how can it be true that the same judiciary that issues warrants under the 4th Amendment cannot be trusted to run a fair trial? If the judiciary is untrustworthy then adding warrants to more spots in the NSA cannot fix the issue. So is that what Snowden wants, or does he want to prevent the government from even having the ability to monitor communications, even with a warrant?

Similarly, if Snowden is such a patriot I can't believe that he has putting himself, his brain, and all the TS that he's carrying or has access to within 100 miles of Russia. He's potentially one $5 wrench away from spilling a _lot_ of TS, voluntarily or otherwise, to people who are not as kind as Assange and Greenwald.

I just don't know what to think about him anymore, and I think that's what is bugging me more than anything.

<comment><USER4> Ultimately, Snowden probably doesn't know anything that China doesn't already know. (You couldn't say the same thing about the information Manning dumped, by the way).

Regardless: I don't think his motives should have much to do with how the law treats him, which makes the concern over which countries he's choosing to visit even more of a sideshow.

I think most rational observers understand why Snowden is picking the countries he's picking; he's choosing the large, easily reached countries with the weakest ties to US law enforcement. It's disingenuous to pretend that his arrival in Moscow is a commentary on Russian civil rights.

<comment><USER5> > _You couldn 't say the same thing about the information Manning dumped, by > the way_

How far along the "normal to crazy conspiracy theory" line would it be to question whether, if people like Manning and Snowden can so easily leak this information, couldn't China already have got it themselves? I mean, if spying had reached that level... would we know about it?

<comment><USER4> The problem in Manning's case wasn't China.

<comment><USER5> My bad, I took your comment at word value rather than big picture. I didn't follow a huge amount of what Manning leaked, who were you referring to with " _You couldn 't say the same thing about the information Manning dumped, by the way_"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Obama: "What we know is that we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with various other countries to make sure the rule of law is observed"

There seems to be a lot of double speak about THE LAW as being something universal. This seems to me to be mostly propaganda directed at Americans since foreign governments certainly understand the nuances of treaties, etc. I don't want to be too critical but it seems like the USA being one of the few countries to not accept the world court is ironic.

<comment><USER7> > "What we know is that we're following all the appropriate legal channels and > working with various other countries to make sure the rule of law is > observed"

This seems to be the exact correct thing to say, though. Would you have preferred

<< we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with various other countries to make sure the rule of AMERICAN law is observed" >>

?

<comment><USER8> Given that they seemed initially to be demanding HK circumvent their own laws to turn Snowden over quickly "if they respect the rule of law," the latter might be more accurate.

I'd really rather they be saying the former _and walking the walk_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How would is life play-out if he went back to the US, and how will it play out if he gets asylum somewhere like Ecuador? In the former would he die in prison, or would he some day be released, be it in a few years or many years? What precedents are there that span the long-term (i.e. more than Manning)? And if he gets asylum... in a year can he just live a quiet life, in a foreign country? Or will he constantly be looking over his shoulder, unable to ever return home, regretting his decision not to face the US legal system?</comment>


Witch Burnings in Papua New Guinea - <AUTHOR> http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/they-burn-witches-here/ <comment><USER2> > The Highlanders fancied the music not because it was beautiful. They liked > it, they explained, because the trumpets sounded exactly like the brassy > screams of captive women selected for feasting.

And then later:

> Our social harmony was going along until the white man arrived … You > intrude, and suddenly the things that used to go smoothly no longer do.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that a social harmony in which people love the cries of those they are about to eat is a social harmony which _needs_ disruption, destruction and replacement with something better.

What Papua New Guinea needs is more, not less colonialism; it needs a governor like General Sir Charles Napier, who put down the practice of suttee in Sindh, and who upon being entreated by the native priests that it was a sacred rite which should be respected, responded, 'Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation also has a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs!' (from Sir W.F. Napier's 'History of General Sir Charles Napiers Administration of Scinde').

It's a tragedy that civilised powers did not stay there longer and correct more of PNG's broken society; it would be a crime (of ethics, if not of law) if the Western energy companies aren't doing something to fix that society, rather than live on its edges.

<comment><USER3> Yep. There's a great book called _Sick Societies_ that does a great job dismantling the myth of the noble savage. PNG is one place discussed. IIRC, it also contains some cultures that highly value eating people you betray. The greater the betrayal (as in, you've befriended someone and act in their interests, then kill them), the higher the reward (respect or whatever).

Simply by agreeing on some basic human rights, or just being opposed to murder, is enough to show these societies are bad. Interference isn't intrinsically bad, and there's nothing unethical about putting an end to such atrocities. (It might be easy to fall into the trap of committing your own ethical violations while ending atrocities, but it's not required.)

The book does a good job of providing solid evidence of the harm these cultures inflict on people.

<comment><USER4> Could the american south of 50 years back included as a "sick society". Just swap "evil witch" with "uppity negro" and exactly the same atrocities were being committed. Labeling whole groups of people as savages or noble is just a lie, and its been used to enslave and dehumanize others through history. We are all capable of being savage or noble, whether you live in a tropical jungle or highrise apartment somewhere.

<comment><USER3> Even if you do, it doesn't change the myth of the noble savage. Like the poster was saying, these folks are pining for the good days, before the "white man" came and messed it up. All I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization. (I'd guess that post colonization was nearly always an improvement, but that's unrelated.)

<comment><USER4> > I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before > colonization

Using your metric of "messed up society" ie the public, condoned torture and murder of "outsiders", the point am making is that all societies are pretty messed up.

And when you start labelling whole groups of people that way, thats actually step 1 in the plan to exploit, colonize or commit genocide.

<comment><USER3> That's fine, all societies may be messed up. That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization (noble savage, to repeat myself).

And I don't think colonization belongs on the same level as genocide. Having lived in a shitty country, they'd be _far_ better off if they were colonized by a decent country (even today). They might be better off after a genocide, too, but that has a negative effect on everyone that's killed so it's unfair. Colonization doesn't have that issue. The people of said country seem to agree, given their persistence of trying to immigrate to other countries, while expressing a fondness for their home country. If their home country was colonized, they could enjoy the benefits of both. (To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that e.g. Elbonia would benefit greatly by having e.g. Canada peacefully take over their government and run it as a second tier province.)

<comment><USER4> > That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization

What does colonization mean to you? What value did colonization bring (lets talk factual specifics here) that weren't there before.

> They might be better off after a genocide, too

So what exactly are the benefits of a genocide?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> PNG is an extraordinary place. My father spent a year in the highlands in 1960, in a missionary outpost in a part of the highlands tha only had contact with the outside world about 5 years earlier. He fell in love with the place and the people; I then visited the same a village a couple of years ago, and had what will probably be the trip of a lifetime, with incredible friendly, welcoming and warm people.

The cities however are very edgy, dangerous and of no charm whatsoever.

This article of course is talking about a very ugly and horrific side of the culture, albeit one that flares up once in a while rather than being ever present.

As it discusses, in the highlands the people didn't even know the rest of the world existed until the 20th century. They hardly ever went to the next village. It was extraordinarily isolated. It's also an incredible story, I strongly recommend the (out of print) book First Contact that describes how both the explorers and locals reacted to this incredible moment - all expertly documented, and recent enough that the authors could interview people who remembered it first hand.

The true highlands are not the towns this article discusses. Mount Hagan is a large bustling town with a main airport. It no doubt has much more occurrences of this ugliness, with communities thrown together more and the chaos of large town living.

The villages in the highlands, where I visited, don't have this kind of vibe, though I'm sure sometimes events like this could occur. They have a sense of community that we in the west have lost. For instance, all the children play together in one big bundling group of fun. The 8 year olds, 5 year olds and 3 year olds (with 1 year olds on their hip) all being kids, without parents (let alone a helicopter one) - though any adult might interact if required. When this type of community setting goes wrong you get the 'immune system' response this article describes, but this doesn't paint any of the daily positives when things are normal.

Like the author I'm optimistic that education will make the bad parts a think of the past. But don't think PNG is a country of savages - the highlands that I and my father knew, whilst transitioning in an exceptionally unique way are full of humanity as wonderful as anywhere in this world.

<comment><USER6> I have been to PNG three times. Early '80s when I was three for ten months (had my fourth birthday there), again when I was thirteen for three months, and lastly about eight years ago for a few weeks.

I agree with your observations, which feel quite astute to me.

Some of the cities are awful, particularly Moresby. (I stayed in the Mapang guest house that was mentioned when we got stranded in Moresby due to a missed connecting flight. Travel plans always involved trying to get in and out of Moresby in the same day and not leaving the airport if at all possible.)

I spent most of my time in Ukarumpa but have visited Goroka as well as Lae and Madang. Never been near Mount Hagan, which has a long history of violence.

One thing I noticed changing over the times I visited was the increased amount of security. The razor-wire fences, not just in Morseby. Armed security guards and such.

With around 860 distinct languages, isolation and travel difficulty imposed by incredibly rugged terrain, it is a country with remarkably unique challenges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Thanks to missionaries ... 96 percent of people in Papua New Guinea consider themselves Christian._

That's a bizarre bit of editorializing to put into what should be a balanced work of journalism.

I imagine the writer was trying to imply that most of the population in Papua New Guinea won't participate in events like these because of a belief system they've acquired. However, when a writer words things like that, it makes me question their inherent bias.

<comment><USER8> I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to here. That missionaries operate in PNG?

<comment><USER7> I'm objecting to the implication that we should be thankful that the people of Papua New Guinea have been "converted" to a different system of beliefs.

The "conversion" of various indigenous peoples to essentially a western system of beliefs is what I find disagreeable. Proselytization events such as these have resulted in a significant loss to the preservation of various cultures (and languages) around the world and I feel have contributed to a loss of identity especially among indigenous or aboriginal communities.

Forgive me if I seem overly sensitive to this, but some of my ancestors got to experience this "wondrous conversion" firsthand and it leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

<comment><USER9> Oh I interperted the use of "thankful" here as in relation to the cause, not in relation to being thankful.

<comment><USER8> Your previous reading was correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord PNG has been the subject of a rather horrific ongoing civil war over the past some 45 years, but scarcely documented and seldom known in the West: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict)

It's rather surreal.

<comment><USER10> I think the conflict concerns Idonesia, not PNG.

<comment><USER11> Yeah it's in West Papua rather than PNG.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It probably takes longer to figure out how to respond to this article than to other articles linked to on Hacker News

<comment><USER13> This is true, even in situations where you don't care about downvotes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The craziest thing about this is that the perpetrators of these crimes do not seem to be "using their beliefs as an excuse to kill for other reasons." Rather, it appears that long-held beliefs in witchcraft are _the_ reason why the perpetrators are killing. They sincerely believe they're in the right when they burn those women alive!

Warning to readers: the article contains pictures of crowds in villages watching as women accused of witchcraft are tortured before they get burned to death. It's shocking, disgusting, and disturbing.

<comment><USER6> _About 15 years ago, Monica had been a typical PNG wife, caring for her children and her many subsistence gardens, until her father died suddenly from a heart attack. As the eldest child, she was entitled to inherit his house, but her younger brother wanted it badly and accused her of killing their father with witchcraft. Jelasy like his is very often a motivating factor in Highlands witchcraft accusations._

Certainly _some_ are using their beliefs as an excuse to kill for other reasons, manipulating the fear of unwitting participants. As with any and every belief system though-out history, it will be manipulated by some to their own ends.

I agree that it is probable that the _majority_ of perpetrators are behaving out of long-held beliefs though. Beliefs that need to be dismantled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Similarly out there beliefs Bali...

[http://www.smh.com.au/world/communist-victims-exhumed-in- bal...](http://www.smh.com.au/world/communist-victims-exhumed-in-bali-to-stop- their-spirits-disturbing-villagers-20151031-gknm72.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> These reactionary islanders should know best practice is to imprison your witches.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse)

</comment><comment><USER17> The scrollbar was very irritating

</comment><comment><USER18> US evangelical christian pastors have been leading witch burning in Africa pretty recently. They burned children alive:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children- de...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children- denounce_n_324943.html)

<comment><USER19> I highly doubt that. For one, "witch hunting" is not part of any mainline church doctrine nor is it in the new testament. Yes I know it is in the old testament, but the OT _Jewish_ laws do not govern the church. A good example of this is of course found in the new testament. What happened when a man was caught in the act of adultery? He was simply kicked out of the congregation, and only through repentance and remorse would one be let back in.

For the most part, the links you posted only mentioned pentecostal denominations. And as much as I disagree with pentecostalism, I really can't even tear into it here because that is not even what is at play here.

This is Africa we are talking about. An entire continent that is filled with tribes and small villages that at least at one time, were ruled by witchdoctors. Got a plague among you? Sacrifice a few children they say. Got AIDS? Find a 10 year virgin and "purify" yourself with her. These things have been the norm over there for ages. The media simply loves to find the worst of the worst and brandish it all over. There are plenty of good missionaries and ministries over there: [http://tinyurl.com/njaqtzc](http://tinyurl.com/njaqtzc) but they are of course ignored and not shared because they are not as "exciting" and sensationalized as the negativity.

<comment><USER4> >This is Africa we are talking about. An entire continent that is filled with tribes and small villages that at least at one time, were ruled by witchdoctors. Got a plague among you? Sacrifice a few children they say.

Your ideas about africa come straight out of the 1850s, and I'm embarrassed to read these kind of comments here. Atleast the people from the 1850s have an excuse ( no internet, pictures, books, travel etc to get the real facts); but whats yours?

<comment><USER19> No, this is from several groups of missionaries I personally know over there right now. Some in the bush who have to deal with witch doctors running villages, and others in big cities where they have to deal with somehow paying $800 for rent a month.

You take my quote somewhat out of context, what I am saying is there have been plenty of terrible things happening over there. Yet this one person tries to post/comment with a "look what the christians did" type of attitude.

<comment><USER4> So your friends have witnessed human sacrifice of children? Get real. If you dont want to be taken out of context, dont use colorful anectdotes straight out of a 1850s novel.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A University Can Sell Its Soul - <AUTHOR> https://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2019/04/28/how-university-can-sell-its-soul-hastacs-stanford-origins-and <comment><USER2> I can just say we are lucky that arXiv did not get sold off to a commercial journal publisher.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Full title is "How a University Can Sell Its Soul: HASTAC's Stanford Origins and the University's Current Decision on Stanford University Press" but I had problems submitting with that.</comment>


History's Largest Mining Operation Is About to Begin - It's Underwater - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/20000-feet-under-the-sea/603040/ <comment><USER2> > Some of that slurry will contain toxins such as mercury and lead, which > could poison the surrounding ocean for hundreds of miles. The rest will > drift in the current until it settles in nearby ecosystems.

I was just thinking as I read this, "no way this can go wrong!"</comment>


Show HN: CloudRail Now on Swift – Unified APIs for Storage, Social Networks, - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/CloudRail/cloudrail-si-ios-sdk <comment><AUTHOR> After an Objective-C library, we've now ported our Unified API on Swift as well. We would love to get feedback from Swift developers about the library in general but also how the interfaces are designed, documentation etc. Thanks!</comment>


A New Tor Search Engine - <AUTHOR> https://abikogailmonxlzl.onion.casa/ <comment><USER2> TOR hidden services is an Internet realm where people go for privacy. A search engine for it with Google Analytics attached looks like a grim irony to me, not to say mockery.

<comment><USER3> I think most people here fail to realize how correct your comment is. The only security you get from visiting a TOR hidden service is from knowing exactly what is its URL.

You can't trust the URL you see from a web engine.

The reason is that the onion address of a TOR hidden service is actually a hash of its public key. The TLS connection you have with the TOR service is only verified by you knowing the exact URL you've typed in your TOR browser.

Without this you could be visiting a fake onion address which would be man-in- the-middling you and the real onion address you're trying to visit.

Probably this is the real purpose of the advertised search engine.

<comment><USER4> > I think most people here fail to realize how correct your comment is.

I think you are assuming a lot about what people here thinks.

The author of the comment you are referring to thought that the GA scripts were set up by the search engine, which is not the case. The gateway actually includes GA scripts, and if people want real privacy they don't use a gateway they can't trust (or they would be accessing it over Tor anyway, thus hiding who they really are for the gateway and for GA).

> The only security you get from visiting a TOR hidden service is from knowing > exactly what is its URL.

Well, no, that's not the _only_ security you get. There is also encryption and hidden IP address for example. Depending on your threat model it could be totally okay not to know who you are visiting. "Random" example: if you are using a search engine to discover new hidden services, you can't know their names in advance anyway…

> The TLS connection you have with the TOR service

It doesn't really work like that (and it's written "Tor" not "TOR" btw).

> Probably this is the real purpose of the advertised search engine.

Now you are accusing this service of trying to MITM its users based on nothing. Especially since you didn't seem to bother verifying if the GA scripts were actually set up by the search engine (which they aren't).

<comment><USER5> > Depending on your threat model it could be totally okay not to know who you > are visiting. "Random" example: if you are using a search engine to discover > new hidden services, you can't know their names in advance anyway…

That's all technically true, but I doubt even HN readers really understand what that means. So let's compare...

If you open up a Google Chromebook and discover new sites by going to the default page which is a search engine also owned by Google, who a) because of the sorry state of CAs has implemented its own open source tool to watch the set of known certificates for any funny business that would signal a break somewhere in all that overly-complicated brittle technology, and b) is Google's bread and butter such that if they started mapping site titles/descriptions (which you've probably heard of out of band) to different URLs would lose their stranglehold on the industry, not to mention such an attempt would be reported widely in the news media... you can't know their names in advance anyway.

vs. an expanded version of the original:

If you are discovering new services via a new search engine released from an entity you've never heard of that maps page titles/descriptions of hidden services you've never heard of to human unreadable strings on an anonymity overlay for which phishing scams, covert site takeovers, and drive-by malware attacks don't make the front page of most news media... you can't know their names in advance anyway.

Edit: remove redundant adjective, clean up confusing sentence

<comment><USER6> True, but keep in mind that just because these hidden services' true identities aren't known, doesn't mean they can't have a reputation.

If this search engine becomes popular among Tor users for example, and you follow a few news sites which focus on stories related to the dark web, you'll end up in basically the same situation as you are now with Google. (With the search engine losing the trust of its users if it starts behaving maliciously.) Same goes for other hidden services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This one stinks. Top 2 drug market disappear and a new search engine with fairy tale like timing shows up, with google analytics included, SSL by GlobalSign? Nope nope nope

<comment><USER4> The GA scripts are not installed by the search engine but by the onion.casa gateway. Idem for the ssl certificate.

Also, the "fairy tale timing" may be explained as simply as "Tor stuff were on the news recently so some people got (re)interested in Tor stuff" :).

<comment><USER8> Yeah. That would be "implied security". The default go-to for intelligence people. It would be stupidly naive to think we can beat them at the meta game. Eternal vigilance; disregarding any foreign information influencers safeguards you better against being subverted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How does it work? What's advanced about it?

<comment><USER10> Yeah, it seems like a normal search engine to me. But with more scams and fringe stuff in the results.

Edit: For context, the title used to say "Advanced Tor Search Engine"

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It appends additional .casa when I click on the links from the search, like <some_onion_link>.casa.casa so it does not work without removing one manually.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can use it directly via Tor Browser - [http://abikogailmonxlzl.onion](http://abikogailmonxlzl.onion)

<comment><USER12> Good to know.

I notice it isn't supporting https. Isn't that risky when connecting through Tor?

<comment><USER13> No. Traffic to .onion domains is encrypted end-to-end, with the server's public key hashing to the domain name.

<comment><USER14> Both of you know it already, but it might be useful to remind the casual reader that while this is indeed not needed for tor hidden services, you still need https for regular web services accessed through tor (in some way even more than when not using tor). This interactive explanation by the EFF is worth a thousand words: [https://www.eff.org/fr/pages/tor-and- https](https://www.eff.org/fr/pages/tor-and-https)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It wasn't able to find my homepage. I guess it crawls a finite list of hidden services. There doesn't seem to be a way to submit an url however.

<comment><USER15> It didn't find mine either

<comment><USER16> Read more links are 404 on your dark blog. Same if you click the header. Seem they forget the /blog/ part of the path.

<comment><USER15> Uh oh, thanks for letting me know. I will try and rectify this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How did it just directly topped the HN Frontpage? - with no comments and just 8 points, submitted 12 minutes ago?

I'm scared in the age of ransomware!

<comment><USER18> By getting 8 points in 12 minutes during a quiet time..

<comment><USER17> I think the definition of quiet time might be something do with Timezone bias and I don't know if HN has peak times and Quiet times - writing this from IST 4:29PM.

My concern was more of 'Tricking the system?'

<comment><USER19> If it helps any it was posted just before lunch UK time (which is why I'm here, hello!)

<comment><USER20> bon appétit

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://abikogailmonxlzl.onion.link](https://abikogailmonxlzl.onion.link) seems to work better...</comment>


Spider That Builds Its Own Spider Decoys Discovered - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/12/spider-building-spider/

<comment><USER2> _"Considering that spiders can already make really impressive geometric designs with their webs, it's no surprise that they can take that leap to make an impressive design with debris and other things,"_

Sure, but what is more interesting is how such a spider would know what itself looks like.

<comment><USER3> There's no need for the spider to know what itself looks like. If it builds something that increases survival/reproduction, that trait will be selected for.

      The spiders' webs were crafted around face-height, near the trail

This makes me wonder if it was selected for stopping humans from wrecking their webs! It would explain why the decoys look like spiders, to humans.

<comment><USER4> way too little time to evolve that behavior

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Could this decoy be used in the mating ritual to attract females rather than something to do with predators? From my limited reading, many spiders have rather elaborate mating rituals. Also with females being larger and usually killing the smaller male spiders, having a decoy to distract the female might allow the spider to stay alive longer and mate with more female spiders.

<comment><USER6> I think it's the male that goes to the female in such cases. The decoy could perhaps be used to attract _males_. But I'm not an arachnologist, so there may be some obvious reason why that's not the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> so seriously, how does behavior like this evolve?

step 1. less-evolved spider builds random clump on web

step 2. spider achieves benefit of scaring off more predators

step 3. spider with clump-building ability becomes dominant species as it outperforms and outcompetes non-talented spiders

step 4. spider with clump-building ability builds less-random clump

step 5. repeat step 2 thru 4 until spider-like clump achieved

my question with this hypothesis is, why does the clump-building behavior end up with something that looks like a spider and not something that would give the spider an even greater evolutionary edge, like say, a tiger's face?

<comment><USER8> I think the benefit might be less of scaring away predators, but just acting as an alternative, bigger target for them. Anyone looking at spider webs for a meal will immediately go for the large obvious spider-looking thing in the web, and while that predator is dealing with the confusion of getting a mouthful of debris and gunk the real spider can make a get-away.

<comment><USER7> good point. but this means that step 1 has to immediately be appetizing to be of evolutionary benefit. (arguably it could be). It also conflicts a little bit with the observed behavior that the spider is shaking the web, trying to get attention to the bigger spider. If the true benefit was escape, I would think not-attracting attention would be the resultant behavior.

Just my opinion. I guess we don't know for sure. There's probably a way for some biologist to figure that out for certain - would make an interesting postdoc.

<comment><USER9> Step 1 doesn't need to be that appetizing if the cost of building the decoy is low. Any benefit, as little as it may be, is already an advantage if it covers that cost.

About the attention-seeking behavior, we can compare it to the same behavior geckos adopt when they find themselves in danger: they start shaking their tails vigorously to attract the attention of the predator to the tail (geckos are known for being able to detach their tails in these cases, and once detached the tail keep shaking vigorously, potentially attracting the predator giving the gecko a chance to escape). In both cases, the spider and the gecko seem to only engage in this behavior once they already have the predator's attention, so trying to escape without shifting the predator's attention to the decoy could actually put the attention on them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow, just wow. Not that I'm a big fan of spiders mind you but a spider that creates 'fake' spiders as decoys? That is pretty amazing. Thanks for sharing it.

<comment><USER11> True hackers. Love it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Am I the only one who thought the story is about web spiders?

<comment><USER6> I hope I'm not the only one who read this comment and spent a moment thinking "but it is!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Another interesting spider - peacock spider:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgAbyYDFeg>

<comment><USER14> The first half was great but the narration was not very good towards the end.

I finished it though because it was fascinating. Reminds me of the birds that have elaborate rituals and when I think of the bug versions they are much less exciting. The spider was 'almost' cute but then I saw some of the other suggested videos and remembered why I don't like them.

What's amazing is there are probably many species of bugs just waiting to be found.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It seems like spider weaving is such a natural and central ability to spiders. What's more it's hackable. Some wasps inject chemicals that manipulate them to create a habitat for their eggs and be even eaten alive.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymenoepimecis_argyraphaga>

</comment><comment><USER16> the questions is how does he know how he looks like? is he looking at other spiders? maybe he looked into a reflection on the water? or does he simply just know?

<comment><USER17> Don't all animals "know" to some degree? After all, they "know" they're attracted to mates of the same type. Though I guess sometimes a dog humps a leg.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Even they're cloning themselves? I think we're falling behind in the race

</comment><comment><USER19> pretty amazing that they can make something to scare the big guys while catching the small guys. also prevent the bigger guys from ruining the trap.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'd love it if ducks did this.

</comment><comment><USER21> Maybe spiders see themselves through offsprings.</comment>


Supreme Court seek Obama administration views on Google-Oracle dispute - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/12/us-usa-court-copyright-idUSKBN0KL1IB20150112

<comment><AUTHOR> This dispute centers upon whether APIs can be copyrighted. This case has broad implications for everyone who builds and uses software. See [https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google](https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle- v-google) for a bit more background.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm confused about how precedent works in this kind of case.

Generally, the precedent that a particular court must follow in a case is the rulings of courts that its ruling in the case can be appealed to. So, a California district court has to follow 9th Circuit precedent in a copyright case, because it will be the 9th Circuit appeals court that gets the case on appeal. The California district court does not have to follow, say, 2nd Circuit precedent, because the case will not ever reach the 2nd Circuit appeals court.

For a patent case, the path is a little different. All patent appeals go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rather then to the Circuit appeals courts. Thus, a California district court hearing a patent case follows CAFC precedent, because that's where the case will go on appeal.

The Oracle-Google case is _both_ copyright _and_ patent. Because of the patent aspect, the appeal from the district court went to the CAFC. Although a copyright appeal would not go to CAFC on its own, CAFC is allowed to handle it when it is part of a patent case. Thus, we end up with the CAFC issuing a copyright ruling.

What I do not understand is which courts have to take the CAFC copyright ruling as precedent.

Suppose I sue someone over copyright in California, and suppose there are no patent issues anywhere near the case...it's just a pure copyright case. The appeal then will go to the 9th Circuit appeals court, not to CAFC, so does the district court in this case have to follow CAFC's Oracle ruling? Or do they look strictly to what the 9th Circuit has said?

Given the theoretical basis for precedent, I'd expect that the district court follows the 9th Circuit.

If that's the case, suppose that the defendant would really prefer to operate under CAFC copyright precedent rather than 9th Circuit copyright precedent. Could he try to add a patent counterclaim, so that the appeal would go to CAFC, and so the district court would have to follow CAFC precedent? Would I have a reasonable chance under FRCP Rule 42 to ask for separate trials on the copyright and patent issues?

</comment><comment><USER3> The Supreme Court also seek DoJ views on Google vs Vederi, the Google Street View case that the Appeals court reversed

</comment><comment><USER4> I fail to see what Oracle gets out of all this aggression other than an interminable legal fight and associated expenses, the scorn of developers everywhere, and a _very_ iffy future pay-off. What is the motivation here?

<comment><USER5> Money. What else would the motivation be? This is Oracle we're talking about.

<comment><USER4> OK, but they're already making money. And anyway it is far from certain if they will "win" and moreover how much they'll even get out of it. It is less likely to be successful than a "slip-and-fall" scam. Surely, there is more to it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does anybody else find it disturbing that the Supreme Court, which, as the head of the legislative, should be a fully independent entity, defers its decision of whether it should become active to the head of the executive/judicative? So much about the separation of powers...

<comment><USER7> 1) They aren't deferring the decision of whether to become active; they're asking the administration to provide its thoughts. They aren't bound to do what the administration says, but it's not unprecedented or even that odd.

2) Not to be pedantic but for the benefit of others who may not be aware: the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body, not the head of the legislative body. Congress is legislative, the courts are judicial, and the Obama administration is the current incarnation of the executive branch.

<comment><USER6> Whoops, mixed the two words up there... sorry about that. I just read the article as the decision being a bit more conditionally then.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Using semantic tagging to improve hotel reviews - <AUTHOR> https://www.repustate.com/tripadvisor-reviews/

<comment><USER2> Wow, it looks good. I might use this next time I'm looking for a hotel. I would love this as an addon in Chrome, so I can use it while browsing hotels. Unfortunately, most of my trips lately have been to Russia, and you don't cover those.

One nit pick, the 'staff' filter seems to cut sentences in half, usually ending in the word 'staff'. The actual comments about the staff seem to follow the word 'staff' in the reviews, thus it failed on the few reviews that I looked at. Still, there were over 400 reviews for the particular hotel that I looked at, so it may have worked better in other reviews.

I'd also be curious if it gave more weight to more recent reviews. Staff can change quite a bit in two years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, this is just a proof-of-concept that our intern made. It can definitely be extended to cover any & all hotel reviews that are publicly accessible.

As for the staff issue - the classification goes by semantic chunk, rather than by sentence, since sentences can cover different semantic topics e.g. "The staff were great, but the beds were too hard." But I agree, sometimes it looks a bit ... off.

Your weighting idea is also a good one too. Maybe introduce some sort of decay factor and weight the scores accordingly. In fact, that might be good feedback for the hotel to see how their ratings have changed over time.

Thanks for the feedback.</comment></comment>


Virtual cocktails hijack your senses to turn water into wine - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2152409-virtual-cocktails-hijack-your-senses-to-turn-water-into-wine <comment><USER2> Well this is possibly the stupidest thing I've seen today.</comment>


Drivebox – Use Google Drive and Drop Box for Receiving Files - <AUTHOR> https://drivebox.io/ <comment><USER2> Please, you already submitted this yesterday:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10264631](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10264631)</comment>


Ask HN: Best shoes for sysadmins? - lich-li <comment><AUTHOR> Comfortable ones?</comment>


Our M&A wish list – the types of companies we'd like to acquire - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/acquisition-wish-list/ <comment><AUTHOR> We published this a few days ago.

Initially, we got a few comments asking why we did this as folks seemed to think this would be "used by competitors"

However, most of the feedback has been positive.

And most importantly, we've received 11 inbound emails for companies that meet the criteria. We're looking at them but on the surface, 2 look somewhat interesting. None of the 11 were companies we'd heard of either so this def has revealed companies we would not have known.</comment>