Nailed it. Things have changed to allow cheaper (interpretable in several ways) developers to create “good enough” software as quickly as possible. If that involves inefficient frameworks, technology, and practices that unlock this, then so be it; if the “best” code is the code that makes money, and money is what corporations prioritize above all else, and there is a way to do that quicker and cheaper, the outcome is obvious and now ubiquitous. Furthermore, if nobody at the top cares, why should anyone on the ground care? The problem compounds.

Priorities are fucked.

Autopilot hasn’t received any updates for years.

Like I said, demonstrates neglect.

If Kleenex were the only ones doing facial tissue, then this could be, “toilet paper vs. Kleenex”, and you’d be wondering “why isn’t this Charmin vs Kleenex?” while Charmin happened to be the TP brand they chose because they had access to it.

Tesla is the only one doing camera-only self driving, so there’s no point in delineating the two. Lidar you can expect from any other brand, so it’s a token choice in this instance, especially for an engineering entertainment video.

Autopilot is just adaptive cruise control that keeps the car in lane.

Anyone who watches the video in question knows this statement is misleading. Autopilot also stops when it detects an obstacle in the way (well, it’s supposed to, but the video demonstrates otherwise). Furthermore, decades old adaptive cruise from other brands will stop too because even they have classic radar or laser range-finding.

If even the most basic go no-go + steer operation based on computer vision can’t detect and stop before obstacles, why trust an even more complicated solution? If they don’t back-port some apparent detection upgrade from fsd to the basic case, that demonstrates even further neglect anyway.

The whole point that everyone is dancing around is that Tesla gambled that cheaping out by using only cameras would be fine, but it cannot even match decades-old technology for the basic case.

Did they test it against decades old adaptive cruise? No, that’s been solved, but they did test it against that technology’s next generation, and it ran circles around vision not backed by a human brain.

Left unsaid: the future of Amazon coders is the future of industry coders. Every other organization will clamor to do the same, and Amazon will productize it and offer it as yet another 3-letter service on AWS. Developers will be made to devops themselves into their own demise.

Edit:

Further, they will do to the software development industry what they did to retail, data centers, hosting, systems administration, and IT.

We build our own prisons.

Sorry you are getting downvoted for being one of today’s 10,000

Wow, thanks for this. That is very helpful context. And thanks for your original post too, or I’d never have asked.

Basically, they aren’t hurting yet.

Exactly. You could reduce their wealth by a factor of 1000, and they would still have more than 90% of people. They will never be genuinely hurt by losses. Not like 99% of people would be.

The chart shouldn’t make anyone happy. The true horror of it should be realized; in reality it’s an accounting of how much they’re “spending” money to make money. They will continue to make more. The scales here are unfathomable to most people.

It’s borderline misinformation to not include their total wealth for context.

it is detectable […] server side, if you download the script [vs] pipe it into a shell

I presume you mean if you download the script in a browser, vs using curl to retrieve it, where presumably you are piping it to a shell. Because yeah, the user agent is going to reveal which tool downloaded it, of course. You can use curl to simply retrieve the file without executing it though.

Or are you suggesting that curl makes something different in its request to the server for the file, depending on whether it is saving the file to disk vs streaming it to a pipe?

The P stands for plunder.

That’s great, thanks! I really appreciate the detailed response and the links.

The methodology IS cloud native

Ok great. Is it also fair to say that cloud native is the methodology? Or is cloud native a higher order concept that the methodology can fall into? I.e. rock is music, but music is not rock.

Dude, thank you for this. IMO reducing that down to simply “cloud native” is doing a disservice to how absolutely cool that methodology is.

I loved RancherOS in the server space, and always wished there could be a desktop version of it, but I realize that the isolation of docker on docker would be very difficult to deal with for desktop applications. From your description, I feel like Bazzite has done the next best thing.

If I may frame things in RancherOS terms and perspective briefly, given your description of what’s going on with Bazzite, the System Docker container image is being built in the cloud every day, and you could pull it down, reboot, and have the latest version of the OS running. The difference, I am gathering from context, is that while RancherOS “boots” the system image in docker, Bazzite simply abandons RancherOS’s hypervisor-esq system docker layer, and does something like simply mount the image layers at boot time (seeing as how the kernel is contained within the image), and boots the kernel and surrounding OS from that volume. The image is simultaneously a container volume and a bare metal volume. In the cloud, it’s a container volume for purposes of builds and updates, which greatly simplifies a bunch of things. Locally, the image is a bootable volume that is mounted and executed on bare metal. Delivery of updates is literally the equivalent of “docker pull” and a boot loader that can understand the local image registry, mount the image layer volumes appropriately, and then boot the kernel from there.

Do I have this roughly correct?

As someone who builds and deploys software in the cloud all day, seeing the term “cloud native” used for a desktop OS just reads as jibberish to me, no offense. Nobody can seem to explain clearly in simple terms what is actually meant by it.

Does it just mean all of the compilation of binaries and subsequent packaging have all been designed and set up to run in a uniform build pipeline that can be executed in the cloud? Or is bazzite just basically RancherOS (RIP) but for the desktop? I am seeing people in this thread talking along the lines of both of these things, but they are not the same.

Can you explain what the term “cloud native” means as it relates to bazzite in a way that someone who can build Linux from scratch, understands CI/CD, and uses docker/kubernetes/whatever to deploy services in the cloud, could grok the term in short order?