You should definitely go to the pain of upgrading to 21.04, since xx.04 releases get updates for 5 years instead of 6 months.
Even if my machine won't boot afterwards?
Readit Newslovedswain commented on Ubuntu 21.04 ubuntu.com//blog/ubuntu-2... · Posted by u/marcodiego
I don't run Ubuntu. If I did, your question has convinced me I would be happiest on an LTS version. 5 years of not changing much is more in line with my level of interest in puttering around my OS settings than every 9 months.
The 19.10 bump was to get some fresh base libraries to build something as I recall. I think it might have for Remmina. Otherwise totally agree with you, LTS is always preferable
Are you aware that you've been running a version that hasn't been getting updates since July of last year? If not, then having your OS actually get updates again might be a surprise. You'll have to update to 20.04 first, though, and then 20.10 before you can update that to 21.04. There's no direct update path (another known surprise, one might say). If you don't want to update every six months, just stick to the long-term support version (LTS, currently 20.04).
The bootloader was broken for this laptop model in 19.10 and I've been deferring going through the same pain upgrading to 20.04. Totally aware of the support situation and upgrade sequence, but an unsupported machine sure beats a bricked machine
Why 19.10? (I mean, why not 20.04 lts?)
Because I'm running it of course.
Are there any known surprises coming from 19.10?
Deleted Comment
It would probably only take a handful of engineers to mount a solid DoS attack by requesting approval for every shell script they write, home Ubuntu ISO they install, or neighbour's printer they fix to get this policy a little more sensibly refined. In any case whoever wrote that e-mail to him is not someone I would possibly tolerate working for
lovedswain commented on Software Infrastructure 2.0: A Wishlist erikbern.com/2021/04/19/s... · Posted by u/klintcho
Using real person-related data for testing was made illegal in Europe by GDPR. Even with explicit consent of each affected person, the tester needs to make sure that the test really requires real person-related data, otherwise it would violate the principle of "privacy by design" from GDPR. Without consent it is entirely forbidden, as of my understanding of the GDPR.
Due to GDPR I had to implement an anonymization feature for the production database anyway. So I am able to clone the production database for testing and run the anonymization function on every entry in the test database before using it.
This sounds like a needlessly strict interpretation of GDPR. Taken from the UK regulator's site:
> The lawful bases for processing are set out in Article 6 of the UK GDPR. At least one of these must apply whenever you process personal data:
> (a) Consent: the individual has given clear consent for you to process their personal data for a specific purpose.
> (b) Contract: the processing is necessary for a contract you have with the individual, or because they have asked you to take specific steps before entering into a contract.
> (f) Legitimate interests: the processing is necessary for your legitimate interests or the legitimate interests of a third party, unless there is a good reason to protect the individual’s personal data which overrides those legitimate interests. (This cannot apply if you are a public authority processing data to perform your official tasks.)
...
> Legitimate interests is the most flexible lawful basis for processing, but you cannot assume it will always be the most appropriate. It is likely to be most appropriate where you use people’s data in ways they would reasonably expect and which have a minimal privacy impact, or where there is a compelling justification for the processing.
> The processing must be necessary. If you can reasonably achieve the same result in another less intrusive way, legitimate interests will not apply.
> You must include details of your legitimate interests in your privacy information.
I included the legitimate interests bits because they seem most relevant to testing, but even if testing is not considered "necessary" in a particular use case, there still remain at least two more criteria that might satisfy the use of live data in testing, including explicit user consent. Much of the focus of GDPR is on privacy-invasive intrusive processing and prevention of harm, I think a lot of fuss around it can be dispelled when viewed from this angle.
lovedswain commented on Ask HN: How do you keep track of releases/deployments of dozens micro-services? · Posted by u/Kunix
We just made all the microservices into one big monorepo and we deploy all at the same time.
To be honest we tried to avoid the monorepo but it was hellish. Maybe if each microservices was larger and our team was larger but then are they microservices any more?
The biggest difficulty I've experienced is "librification", where some common code ends up in a little library, and soon that library is not so little any more, and not long after starts to look like half of every service. I can maintain discipline when working on small systems alone, but on a team there will always be one lazy person or urgent need which means eventually some shared component gains enough gravity to start sucking code out of their nice isolated homes
Giving up and dumping everything into a monorepo, that's not going to help at all. At that point probably better off just giving up any hope of carefully split up and individually managed services
Deleted Comment