lysdexic

It baffles me that you can advertise something as “unlimited” and then impose arbitrary limits after the fact.

I didn't saw anything on the post that suggests that was the case. They start with a reference to a urgent call for a meeting from cloud flare to discuss specifics on how they were using the hosting provider's service, which sounds a lot like they were caught hiding behind the host doing abusive things,and afterwards they were explicitly pointed out for doing abusing stuff that violated terms of service and jeopardized the hosting service's reputation as a good actor.

First communication, because they clearly were confused about what was happening and felt like they didn’t have anyone technical explain it to them and it felt like a sales pitch.

I don't think that was the case.

The substack post is a one-sided and very partial account, and one that doesn't pass the smell test. They use an awful lot of weasel worlds and leave about whole accounts on what has been discussed with cloud flare in meetings summoned with a matter of urgency.

Occam's razor suggests they were intentionally involved in multiple layers of abuse, were told to stop it, ignored all warnings, and once the consequences hit they decided to launch a public attack on their hosting providers.

Git is ugly and functional.

I don't even think it's ugly. It just works and is intuitive if you bother to understand what you're doing.

I think some vocal critics are just expressing frustration they don't "get" a tool they never bothered to learn, particularly when it implements concepts they are completely unfamiliar with. At the first "why" they come across, they start to blame the tool.

Git is no different. But it sure feels like it never took the idea of a polished user experience seriously.

I've seen this sort of opinion surface often,but it never comes with specific examples. This takes away from the credibility of any of these claims.

Can you provide a single example that you feel illustrates the roughest aspect of Git's user experience?

it’s about deploying multiple versions of software to development and production environments.

What do you think a package is used for? I mean, what do you think "delivery" in "continuous delivery" means, and what's it's relationship with the deployment stage?

Again, a cursory search for the topic would stop you from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel.

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianAlternatives

Deviam packages support pre and post install scripts. You can also bundle a systemd service with your Deb packages. You can install multiple alternatives of the same package and have Debian switch between them seemlessly. All this is already available by default for over a decade.

I feel this sort of endeavour is just a poorly researches attempt at reinventing the wheel. Packaging formats such as Debian's .DEB format consist basically of the directory tree structure to be deployed archived with Zip along with a couple of metadata files. It's not rocket science. In contrast, these tricks sound like overcomplicated hacks.

Logging in local time is fine as long as the offset is marked.

I get your point, but that's just UTC with extra steps. I feel that there's no valid justification for using two entries instead of just one.

I’ve had mixed results with ccache myself, ending up not using it.

Which problems did you experienced?

Compilation times are much less of a problem for me than they were before, because of the increases in processor power and number of threads.

To each its own, but with C++ projects the only way to not stumble upon lengthy build times is by only working with trivial projects. Incremental builds help blunt the pain but that only goes so far.

This together with pchs (...)

This might be the reason ccache only went so far in your projects. Precompiled headers either prevent ccache from working, or require additional tweaks to get around them.

https://ccache.dev/manual/4.9.1.html#_precompiled_headers

Also noteworthy, msvc doesn't play well with ccache. Details are fuzzy, but I think msvc supports building multiple source files with a single invocation, which prevents ccache to map an input to an output object file.

Here’s the sauce

I don't buy it. Unauthorized access attempts are a constant on the internet in general, and in AWS endpoints in particular. When anyone exposes an endpoint, it's a matter of minutes until it starts to get prodded by security scanners. I worked on a project where it's endpoints were routinely targeted by random people running FLOSS security scanners resulting in thousands of requests that were blocked either by rate-limiting or bad/lack of credentials. I don't believe that a single invoice of $1k would trigger such a sudden and massive change of heart, when accidental costs in AWS easily reach orders of magnitude above that price tag.

This seems like something they just never concidered until a really big client that was getting hammered told them they can stick the bill.

Yes, this indeed screams "Cloudflare does not pull this sort of shit", and now they are spinning this as something they do out of kindness.

You'd be missing the whole point too if you think that the pointer is the root cause. The problem is that the class is not designed to be copy-able, let alone moveable. Your suggestion to use a unique_ptr will also blow up in your face the moment you try to copy an instance.