Not surprising, since the few physical RISC-V implementations that are available under-perform a decade-old Raspi by a significant margin, and that platform is not a rocket-ship to begin with.
You are out of date if you think there's no currently available commercial risc-v cores that can outperform the decade old raspberry pi 1 B+. Frankly, a 30 years old pentium 2 could outperform the first raspberry pi. It's a very low bar. And risc-v has crossed it many many years ago.
Excel: the universal Enterprise Resource Planning tool! Not exactly liked by the developer crowd, I know (and sometimes even for good reasons), but still a mostly-useful force to be reckoned with.
Also a technical achievement for the history books (in the DOS era, Lotus 1-2-3 truly pushed the envelope and was the reason for early 'extended memory' standards, but on both Mac and Windows, Excel truly shined, allowing much larger sheets than were possible before, despite the meager hardware resources available).
Also, a true source of feature innovation. 'Autofill', first seen in 1992, was possibly the first 'AI' (and yeah I know), and even the features that were absolutely useless (like the ability to modify sheet values by manipulating a graph, introduced in Office 95, which I remember demo-ing to great applause during the European intro tour) made a mark, as did the UI.
Of all the current 'Office'-style apps, Excel is the only one that is probably still irreplaceable for me. And yeah, I know, it messes up CSV imports by default, which has reportedly set back DNA research by hundreds of years, but that's just a matter of teaching future scientists to use Data/From Text-or-CSV as intended, and will thus sort itself out within the lifetime of this very useful product...
Meta: the linked post is undated, but available on the Wayback Machine as early as November 2005, so a (2005) in the title is warranted and, in any case, this isn't new advice...
To be fair, the Last-Modified header is very sketchy. I use it as one of the heuristics for determining the age of a website in my search engine. It's not great.
It's frequently found incorrect, both older and younger than the actual age of the document. It's a bit of a relic from back in ye olden days when websites were static .htm files in a folder, which is so rarely the case today.
It doesn't help it's also got overloaded uses via If-Modified-Since -style conditional requests.
Plenty of websites also play with the user-visible dates on websites to game search engines - most dates shown in Google results seem to be complete garbage. I don't think Modified-Since is really worse, and it at least gives you a chance to maybe get a date for static pages.
But you are right that If-Modified-Since forces it to be a date for the complete document rather than the content, which might not be as useful to normal users for dynamic pages.
Yeah, my takeaway after having attempted to do so is that properly dating websites is a very hard problem. You can get Google-level-accuracy decent guesstimates relatively easily, but going beyond that is hard.
Not generally useful to show this by default, because nowadays most pages are dynamically generated and although it's technically easy to implement, the last modified header is typically not set to $now.
Well, if Browsers would show it more prominently, there were more motivation to think about it for developers.
But Browsers are bad HTTP clients. Think about bad user experience with file uploads (no built in progress report!?), HTTP auth (not showing status, no logout etc.)
In Chrome you can F12 and go to "Network" tab and then refresh the page. Choose the first file in the list (that's the HTML itself) and you will find "Response Headers" in the "Headers" panel, which includes Last-Modified. It's a bit deep, which makes sense as it's rarely useful.
Last-Modified can have unwanted negative influence on caching behavior. If you want to expose metadata, there's OpenGraph et al. to do the job properly.
Disincentives a suboptimal transportation option. Price signals are important, just like making it expensive to own property where the risk is too high. Automotive ownership and transportation is likely to never be as inexpensive as it previously was.
You will either need to pay the cost or live somewhere you don’t need a car.
It doesn't really matter if you disincentivise it if there isn't an alternative, or the alternatives are even worse, as is currently the case in many parts of the US.
I think the intention is that the disincentives will then create the opportunity for lower-cost transportation options, while simultaneously increasing advocacy in voters.
Personal vehicles are expensive, and historically that cost is hidden from consumers. People were "conned" into believing it was the most economical transportation available personally.
But the subject of OP primarily hurts families with multiple children, but even if it somehow did cause enough advocacy and lobbying, creating better public transit would take decades, at which point the parents would no longer be paying for insurance for their children.
The alternative is doing nothing and hurting people right now. The people who rely on public transportation most are poorer people. Something, eventually, has to be done because the path we're on is destructive. It's getting to the point where it's difficult to go just about anywhere. We're running out of space to put the roads.
Buses and trains don’t run 24 hours a day. I paid a premium to live a walkable distance to most things I do. We drive so little that I fill my tank once every 2-3 MONTHS. But when my four month old has a fever in the middle of the night I absolutely need my car or I would have to call an ambulance. SMH
If my imaginary four-year-old has a fever in the middle of the night, I first phone the nurse-on-duty, and if they determine I need to go somewhere, I see if there's a nearby shared e-vehicle (and in the middle of the night, it will sure be), and use that. Or, like, call an Uber, which might be slightly faster, but for a fever, well...
And if the situation is truly urgent, they'll send an ambulance, which should take less than 15 minutes, and will offer the best care available in that time window anyway.
And I'm absolutely sure the situation is entirely different where you live, but isn't that the real problem then?
If you confiscated my car tomorrow, I literally couldn't get to work or buy groceries. That isn't an optimization, it's a hard reality.
Once you've built timely safe replacement infrastructure that can carry me from my home to my place of employment as fast or faster than my current commute, and take me to any of the shops I frequent, and do that for all of my neighbors, and do all of the above in a way that costs less than car ownership, we can talk.
It also needs to be able to do this _literally door to door_ and without having to sit next to, speak to, or touch anyone I don't know.
Cars are a privacy bubble and a shield, not just a transport mechanism; no form of mass transit will ever be an acceptable substitute in the way that, for me, is the most important factor.
Part of existing in a society is the fact you will interact with other people. There are places - particularly rural - where this is not the case. Such places would probably never not be automobile-centric, as it makes no sense to run lines to low populous, sparce areas.
But if you live in an urban area, the "cost tradeoff" of having everything close is there's more likelihood to be around people. It's untenable to have the desire to have 10 grocery stores, 5 banks, 3 schools etc within 5 miles of you and also have no people interaction. Who runs those places? And who goes to them? The privacy cars provide is therefore mostly an illusion.
Also, I wouldn't describe an automobile as a shield, considering it's by far the thing most likely to kill you. It's a sword, if anything.
Hey, I'm the guy who is 100% against private car ownership, and I don't want to "confiscate your car" (I mean, what would I do with that?) or encourage anyone to do so (unless, of course, they're the bank and you're a delinquent, don't want to upset the apple cart too much...).
I want you to be able to reliably get transport to where-ever you need to go, an what-ever time you need to go there, without the need to keep a 1000-pound pile of junk in (semi-)public spaces at all times.
Where I live, that's pretty much a possibility already. I want everyone to have that same freedom!
"Transport to where-ever you need to go, an what-ever time you need to go there" has to functionally be pretty car-like. My question is how he wants to dispatch it on demand so it doesn't need to stay parked near us.
Buses and trams do that as well, or at least extremely close to it. If the next bus is in a minute, and it's going to the block you're going to, guess what - you can go where you want, whatever time you want.
This is the case in many areas. When I was in Romania, between buses, trams, and rail I could go wherever I wanted, whenever I wanted. There was always an option available, typically multiple overlapping options. Keep in mind this is a poor eastern European country.
Keep in mind it's also fast, like very fast. Going across the city was a 10-minute affair. Try driving across a big city like Dallas.
From Fremont, CA, the Sunnyvale office is a 40-minute wait for a 16-minute bus to a 12-minute wait for a 14-minute train to a 14-minute wait for a 48-minute bus (making 34 stops). Google estimates I could get there in two and a half hours. Getting home after 11 PM is more like four hours.
It's only 22 miles. A replacement for a car should be able to do this in about 32 minutes. But it would have to go point-to-point on demand, they can't cover the spanning tree of n^2 possible trips with any reasonable frequency (mostly because n^2 taxpayers don't exist, nor housing for them).
Right because the US is car-centric, so everything is designed to be an inefficient as possible. Things are far away not in spite of cars, but because of them.
> A replacement for a car should be able to do this in about 32 minutes
Right, again, I was able to go across the capital of Romania in maybe 10 minutes end-to-end. Because Bucharest isn't car centric. And I'm able to reach any arbitrary point in the city trivially.
Also, as a side note, your car couldn't do that in 32 minutes. There're people in CA that commute MUCH LESS than 22 miles that spend 1.5+ hours in traffic a day. Because, again, cars are the most inefficient means of transportation imaginable, so they have awful throughput and bandwidth.
This is mostly a case of US car brain. There're countless examples of places all over the world that are able to achieve this, and more, without a car. The biggest factor to remember is that distance doesn't scale like you think it does - due to the extreme inefficiency of motor vehicle infrastructure, the majority of our space is wasted on not-useful things. 22 miles in the US isn't equivalent to 22 miles somewhere else, because somewhere else those 22 miles have 10x as much stuff, so you wouldn't need to travel 22 miles in the first place.
That system doesn't seem to take you to every Bucharest address in ten minutes, only popular ones. I picked a few buildings at random in Google Maps and got hour-long L-shaped trips (detours into downtown) that would have been fifteen-minute drives. I don't think any pre-scheduled routes can cover n^2 trips well.
This wasn't my experience when you cross-reference the systems (bus, tram, metro) and consider walking also works.
> would have been fifteen-minute drives
Yes, if everyone on Earth magically disappeared. If you've never driven in a dense city, it's often faster to just walk alongside the cars than be in the cars.
This is because, again, cars are so unbelievably space inefficient that the space saving of human people versus cars can make up for the multiple order of magnitude difference in speed.
Cars aren't a liberty, merely an illusion of it. Cars are the reason you can't go anywhere you want to go without paying for a hunk of steel and risking your life. True liberty would be being able to walk everywhere you need to go, but this is rare.
Hence my point; liberty is expensive. Liberty includes the liberty to risk it. There's no illusion. Cars do not rule me. They're not binding, or addictive. They're a tool that physically extend my liberty to go where I please, and I can use them or leave them as I please.
They do, that's what you're missing. They're both binding and addictive, because we have to build our entire society to revolve around them. You've lost countless liberties, as have many Americans, due to the concessions around cars.
The reason your grocery store is 5 miles away is because of cars. The reason you can't have a job without a car is because of cars. The reason you don't have a right to reasonable noise is because of cars. The reason you don't have a right to not inhale tire fumes is because of cars.
Cars have taken away your ability to do a lot of things. And no, you cannot "leave them" as you please, you are required to keep one otherwise you will most likely not have a job. Go ahead, try this out. Get rid of your car for one year, without moving, and come back.
> The reason your grocery store is 5 miles away is because of cars.
You're suggesting everyone just move to a city, or what? Because we can't just litter a grocery store every mile across the entire American continent. We know that cars are neither binding nor addictive because people regularly move to cities and sell their only car with little difficulty. The car increases my liberty, my choice to not live in a city. Have you ever actually lived outside of a city?
The way you're looking at it is upside-down. The car doesn't push opportunities away as if ridding ourselves of cars would magically make everything close, no, it increases my reach. We know this because of historical evidence. Before the car, going to town was an all-day affair in the horse drawn carriage. Now it's a 30 minute trip. Freeing up my day to do whatever else I choose to do.
Maybe you're suggesting that if we didn't have the car, there would be train tracks within walking distance everywhere? I love trains. Rather than trying to kill cars, why not attempt to build better rail infrastructure? Then I could join you.
> We know that cars are neither binding nor addictive because people regularly move to cities and sell their only car with little difficulty
Little difficulty? Is this a joke or do we have different definitions of difficulty?
There're hardly any cities in the US with adequate transportation, number 1. I live in a city; you probably do to. You REQUIRE your car, as do 99.9999% of all cities in the US. Some don't, like NYC - but even there you're pushing it. It's not London.
> as if ridding ourselves of cars would magically make everything close
That's exactly what it does, because everything is far because of the car. It's urban sprawl. We don't have more "stuff", rather we waste the majority of our spaces on infrastructure for cars. Roads, parking, etc.
> Before the car, going to town was an all-day affair in the horse drawn carriage
That's just not true. People live in the town, that's why it's a town. Are you a farmer or something? No, you live in an urban area. You're IN the town, your town is just car centric and therefore it sucks ass to navigate.
> Rather than trying to kill cars, why not attempt to build better rail infrastructure
Sigh... okay:
1. Nobody on Earth is trying to kill cars, including me.
2. The reason rail is bad and isn't getting better is BECAUSE of cars and car-centric infrastructure. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on car infrastructure. That's money not going to public transportation, despite being public funds. If we divert even a fraction of that money, we can have a huge impact. But there's blockers, people like you. In addition, to make rail effective you have to not waste miles and miles of space on urban sprawl. But people love their automobiles and 2 hour commutes.
No need to be dramatic here. First, it's not "forbidden," just expensive. And the cost reflects the level of risk. Insurance companies aren't charities, and the marketplace is competitive, at least.
Nah, not destructive, if I say so myself. More like: disruptive. Which should be a pretty popular concept around here?
To elaborate, maybe: I would fully support a robo-taxi scheme to ferry people to and from their job, shopping, or whatever. Where I live, shared e-vehicles are as good as it gets right now, but that's definitely a promising step already.
Making using a car more expensive doesn't disincentivize car ownership or usage when there is no other alternative. Like you can't rely on public transportation, biking, or ride shares to get to your job in most parts of this country. The rising costs of the past few years haven't reduced personal car usage as much as its made the lives of people near the bottom of the income scale much more stressful and expensive.
Oh, so it wasn't to be taken seriously. Well that's good, because if taken seriously you'd be talking about taking food out of my children's mouths to pay for your fantasy transportation infrastructure that wouldn't pay for itself due to population density, likely be poorly implemented while restricting my freedom of movement, and I make enough that I could eat those costs better than most. I'm annoyed at the terminally-online "I just discovered NotJustBikes and I'm "radicalized"" nature of the idea but there are tens of millions of people for whom it would be an existential issue.
How about we eminent-domain wherever you live to build a train line? Oh that wouldn't be a problem for you? Congrats on being in the top 10% at least.
Having drivers pay their associated costs is not a fantasy transportation play. If driving becomes too expensive, then alternatives will be built, and that’s a good thing. No one is taking anything from your children.
>How about we eminent-domain wherever you live to build a train line? Oh that wouldn't be a problem for you? Congrats on being in the top 10% at least.
Nah, its not a problem because I'm fine contributing to society. If you need everything to stay exactly as it is or you think your life will fall apart, then I have no sympathy for you.
I do believe if we need to do something like eminent domain then people should be compensated and cases like Kelo v. City of New London were pretty disgusting, but I am not going to pretend that we cant change because people were inconvenienced
No, I'm not suggesting any kind of financial pain at all.
Do I support the ability of people to travel to their job, shopping centers, or any destination they like?
Absolutely!
Do I think a privately owned vehicle, which spends 90%+ of its active life being parked in spaces that could be utilized much better otherwise, is the best way to achieve those abilities?
Oh, so you're in favor of playing Sim-City with the infinite money cheat codes.
Cool. Because if you were suggesting that in the real world then, at least in America, you're suggesting a complete overhaul of almost all transportation infrastructure and saying that no average person will have to spend an extra dollar to pay for it somehow. Is Mexico paying for it or something?
I mean it's not like we don't spend $100B+ per year on infrastructure, much of it for roads and other car based transport methods [1]. We could instead invest it in subway and other public transit infrastructure, rather than on exceptionally inefficient, expensive, and environmentally costly modes of transport.
You're projecting harder than the average IMAX<tm> venue.
Even in many parts of America (which are not that different from many parts of, say, France, which I'm very familiar with, thankyouverymuch), private car ownership is not an absolute requirement.
Can people there get around with Public Transport<tm>? Nope. Do they require their Own Private Sardine Can At All Times<tm>? No, not necessarily either.
And I'm firmly in the "No Sardine Cans Ever!" camp, and I have solutions. If you're somewhere else, that's fine with me, but you're not so convincing as you might feel...
You have no solutions, you have fantasies about turning America into a false vision of France apparently.
I've been to France as well, outside of major cities. Perhaps not as well traveled as you, but I remember seeing plenty of private cars in driveways and on roads as we passed by various dwellings. I doubt they'd take kindly to your suggestion either. Weren't there riots over the price of gasoline not that long ago?
Whatever, be a flat-earther of transportation policy if you wish. You clearly aren't serious.
'cause privately-owned cars are a significant contributor to mortality, and take up, like, 99% more space than is warranted?
I mean, everyone (well mostly everyone) is absolutely mortified by commercial aviation, which, like, commits literally 0.01% of those sins on a global scale?
I don’t agree with you on aviation, but on the car front you should also consider that they are an underutilized asset that sits idle for the vast majority of their existence.
If you think mostly everyone is absolutely mortified by commercial aviation, I think you must be in some sort of bubble. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Driving is hideously inefficient. It should be the most expensive option, because taking a 2-ton machine with you everywhere you go should be considered a luxury.
Not everyone lives in cities, not everyone can afford to live in cities, not everyone lives in areas well connected by public transportation and not everyone can afford to live in areas well connected by public transportation.
> not everyone can afford to live in cities ... not everyone can afford to live in areas well connected by public transportation
Looking at it from a theoretical standpoint, physically co-locating living space allows for a number of significant cost efficiencies compared to spreading the same number of people over a larger geographic area. For much of history it was the wealthy who could afford to live outside the cities while the poor had no such choice.
My guess is that if suburban and rural residents actually paid the full cost of their roads and other infrastructure (and if zoning didn't prevent organic density from forming) that living in the suburbs (as I do) would become comparatively more expensive.
But all of these were policy choices over the past decades. We very much could have invested in public transit and built housing, but instead we decided most humans should have a car to go about daily life. Which, if we're optimizing for sending money to car, oil, and healthcare companies, I guess is a good strategy.
The reason those are all so expensive is because the money is being burned on less efficient transport, i.e. cars. Transporting the same amount of people via car requires A LOT more money, due to the nature of motor vehicles.
Yeah, influenza type B 'Yamagata' has been mostly gone since 2020, but that's not necessarily because of COVID, but just because the virus is so variable. In fact, it's highly unlikely for an influenza sub-type to hang around for more than 18 months.
In Europe, for 2024/2025, types A 'Victoria' and 'Thailand' (with type-B 'Victoria' and 'Yamagata' following closely, so you can see it's still there-ish) are expected to be the most virulent. but, as always with influenza, this might be wrong, which means vaccination might be slightly less effective, although still beneficial.
In Europe, the 2024/2025 vaccine composition guidance[0] recommends excluding B/Yamagata, because it hasn't been detected since 2020 and "no longer seems to pose a threat to public health". That doesn't look like "still there-ish".
Well, the strains that I listed are in the Sanofi Quadrivalent vaccine that is most popular in Europe (and being administered right now) as far as I know...
I'm confused on the reporting. The push from folks I'm seeing is definitely inline with social distancing and masking being the big wins.
I thought, during the time, it was also felt that different respiratory viruses effectively out compete each other? Not seeing that mentioned much, at the moment.
I'm also somewhat terrified that folks seem to be taking this in the anti-vaccine direction.
Whenever there's any positive news on masking, there's always online pushback under some theory or another. I'm not saying GP here is necessarily guilty of anything, of course.
Yeah, people who are making claims about social distancing, etc. are wildly leaping to conclusions.
There are a number of more plausible / simpler alternatives. For example: the innate immune system gets activated whenever you have an infection. This is the most primitive form of immunity that you have, and is blunt (fever, snot, generic immunoglobulins, etc.) but effective at warding off pathogens of any sort. It's why you don't often get two different upper respiratory infections at the same time.
Yeah, I don't get these articles (with this one being pretty similar in tone to the 'Hetzner is 4x cheaper than AWS' one I saw on here earlier today).
If all you need is simple compute and bandwidth, and you can spare the resources to admin a server, of course you'll be able to find colocated, dedicated-server or even VPS solutions that fit your requirements and are way cheaper than AWS/Azure/GCS/etc.
The whole selling point of 'cloud' is that you can scale infinitely at a moment's notice and have a whole array of batteries-included services at your disposal. Don't need that? Don't do it, even if it's fashionable...
Worst gang-like behavior of animals I every saw was, like, a decade ago at the Cape Point parking lot in South Africa.
This a relatively large lot (being at the round-turn point of a one-way route), with both personal vehicles and tour busses coming and going. There are also a lot of baboons. On the narrow-ish mountain road up and down, these already pester the vehicles every way they can, but once parked, it's when things get truly special, especially for the tour busses.
First, the baboon females parade past a bus, with infants on their back. The tourists are delighted by this, and rush out with their cameras. Then, the females retreat into the bushes, which further distracts the humans.
Then, the males, which have been hiding in the nearby trees, descend upon the bus, and absolutely ransack it. Everything that can be taken (and that's mostly bags and coats) gets dragged into the trees. Then, they triumphantly go through the loot, redistribute anything that's edible or otherwise interesting, and toss the rest.
It's scary how well these animals instinctively understand the way we behave...
As soon as I read South Africa I knew this was headed towards baboons. I had very similar experiences with them in the mountains around Cape Town when I was there...it's definitely some sort of uncanny valley watching them operate. They understand when tourists mock them, taunting is taken almost as an insult, and as you said -- their criminal enterprises are very sophisticated.
"Leaned behavior" to me means that they previously saw other, non-baboon, groups rob tourists in the same way, which seems unlikely?
This feels more like a situation where the baboons realized that "these humans have yummy stuff" followed by "hey, and this is how we can distract them in order to grab it"
Thanks for your detailed explanation of where I went wrong. Correcting non-native speakers on their mis-use of fringe vocabulary sure feels good, doesn't it?
I was never as scared of wildlife in my life, as one time in a Malaysian tourist trap that housed a gang of baboons. Jesus, they were ferocious. Once the mood changed, there was no stopping them.
So, the article seems to be mostly about desktop usage, but for me, the best way to show off OpenBSD is to just run `ps ax` after a clean install, and compare that to, say, Fedora CoreOS (just because that happens to be the other common OS I use for my server VMs).
On OpenBSD, the list of processes is mercifully short, and I can tell you what each of them is supposed to do. CoreOS? Not so much -- and, yeah, I know, I could of course switch to non-systemd-infested distro, but even there, there would be at least a screen-full of processes of which I could maybe identify half?
This pattern extends to configuration: OpenBSD has a handful of very-well-documented files in /etc, whereas under Linux, things are literally all over the place, and you might even end up editing irrelevant configs, because they happen to be regenerated by yet-another-layer of tooling, or your distro is simply not using the tool you think you're configuring...
Still, I have no clear preference for one OS over the other! With workloads being mostly containerized these days, it's so easy to roll out a new VM, that the level of understanding required to, say, nurse a broken OS on physical hardware back to health, is now simply irrelevant. Just blow away the old and deploy the new, and forget about it.
On OpenBSD, the deployment tooling uses tried-and-true commands like `fdisk` and `ifconfig`, whereas for CoreOS it's YAML (pronounced: 'hell'), but the truth is... it doesn't matter that much. Getting the base OS installed, adding some volumes, creating sub-interfaces for the relevant VLANs, installing Docker(-compose), and getting the containers to (re)start is all very, very similar.
So, yeah, I sort-of get what the article is trying to say, but the ground-truth I think is that in most cases the OS isn't that much of a differentiator anymore, as they're pretty much all OK-ish...
> On OpenBSD, the list of processes is mercifully short, and I can tell you what each of them is supposed to do.
I've always appreciated a very minimal system, but nowadays Alpine Linux is much better for that IMO. I'm not sure there's a better alternative if minimalism is the goal.
In fact, OpenBSD has gotten a lot more verbose over the years, due to sub-processes being listed explicitly. Good example here is `smtpd`, but even then, the difference with Linux remains... stark.
That's because Linux is showing you the kernel processes and OpenBSD isn't.
Filter out the Linux ones that have [ ] around them (grep -v ]$ will do the trick) but just a quick glance tells me the Linux and BSD lists are about the same length.
Counterpoint: possibly OpenBSD doesn't really have any relevant 'kernel processes' (in line with the model: the kernel is there to serve user-mode, and not a goal on its own). (And tangentially: why do I need multiple `psimon` kernel processes? Tire pressure is good to keep in mind, I guess, but, at the kernel level? Repeatedly?).
I truly don't know, by the way; this was merely an example to illustrate my perceived difference-in-complexity between Linux and OpenBSD, which might be entirely misguided, but definitely part of the issue the article linked in the submission hints at?
> why do I need multiple `psimon` kernel processes?
It's the way that module is organised. There's nothing wrong with the idea, you'd need to dive into the code to understand the details.
> illustrate my perceived difference-in-complexity
It depends on the situation. Seeing many kernel threads is one kind of complex. Not seeing the kernel threads and not being able to understand which one is having issues is another kind of complex.
You just saw how the sausage is made, but that has nothing to do with the final taste / how the system actually behaves.
I left it as it defaults, but here is a comparison between OpenBSD and my Linux workstation.
Linux mount is separated between the physical and the memory mounts. The only memory mount I added as for /tmp
OpenBSD:
========
/dev/sd1a on / type ffs (local)
/dev/sd1h on /home type ffs (local, nodev, nosuid)
/dev/sd1d on /tmp type ffs (local, nodev, nosuid)
/dev/sd1i on /u type ffs (local, nodev, nosuid)
/dev/sd1f on /usr type ffs (local, nodev)
/dev/sd1g on /usr/local type ffs (local, nodev, wxallowed)
/dev/sd1e on /var type ffs (local, nodev, nosuid)
Linux:
======
/dev/sda1 on /boot type ext4 (rw,noatime,stripe=4)
/dev/mapper/cryptvg-home on /home type ext4 (rw,noatime)
/dev/mapper/cryptvg-u on /u type ext4 (rw,noatime)
/dev/mapper/lukssdb1 on /u1 type ext4 (rw,noatime)
/dev/mapper/lukssdb2 on /u2 type ext4 (rw,noatime)
tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,size=4194304k,inode64)
proc on /proc type proc (rw,relatime)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,relatime)
tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,size=32768k,mode=755,inode64)
devtmpfs on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,relatime,size=8192k,nr_inodes=1995831,mode=755,inode64)
/dev/mapper/cryptvg-root on / type ext4 (rw,noatime)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,inode64)
cgroup_root on /sys/fs/cgroup type tmpfs (rw,relatime,size=8192k,mode=755,inode64)
cpuset on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset type cgroup (rw,relatime,cpuset)
cpu on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu type cgroup (rw,relatime,cpu)
cpuacct on /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuacct type cgroup (rw,relatime,cpuacct)
blkio on /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio type cgroup (rw,relatime,blkio)
memory on /sys/fs/cgroup/memory type cgroup (rw,relatime,memory)
devices on /sys/fs/cgroup/devices type cgroup (rw,relatime,devices)
freezer on /sys/fs/cgroup/freezer type cgroup (rw,relatime,freezer)
net_cls on /sys/fs/cgroup/net_cls type cgroup (rw,relatime,net_cls)
perf_event on /sys/fs/cgroup/perf_event type cgroup (rw,relatime,perf_event)
net_prio on /sys/fs/cgroup/net_prio type cgroup (rw,relatime,net_prio)
pids on /sys/fs/cgroup/pids type cgroup (rw,relatime,pids)
misc on /sys/fs/cgroup/misc type cgroup (rw,relatime,misc)
cgroup on /sys/fs/cgroup/elogind type cgroup (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,xattr,release_agent=/lib64/elogind/elogind-cgroups-agent,name=elogind)
tmpfs on /run/user/1001 type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,size=1598624k,nr_inodes=399656,mode=700,uid=1001,gid=1001,inode64)
Hmm, I see it's not a systmed based distro. I see a lot of mounts within /sys/fs/cgroups that my system doesn't have (still has stuff populated in it). From what I see yours has cgroup_root mounted there while systemd mounts cgroups2 there. When you remove all subdirectories/mounts in that folder you have a total of 8 mounts, which is 1 more than OpenBSD.
Do note that systemd mounts a lot of other stuff though that isn't mounted on your system (e.g. bpf, a few tmpfs for service credentials, autofs for keeping /boot and /efi unmounted by default [reason: VFAT is relativly brittle, so only mount when needed] and a lot more kernel fs'). This is on a relativly bare Arch image but I don't think there are a lot more mounts to add after the base system.
Sure... "bankrupt-adjacent company with vaguely hard-coded cloud dependencies inconveniences their customers" is a story we've seen many times in the past already, and will continue to see uncountable times in the future, mostly because most people reading stories like these are employed by startups doing the exact same thing.
So, the issue becomes "how to fix this"? This very same site tells me that EU-style hardcore regulation "makes it impossible to run a business", so, I'm open to suggestions, other than "Open Source Everything and Rewrite it in Rust"?
Not surprising, since the few physical RISC-V implementations that are available under-perform a decade-old Raspi by a significant margin, and that platform is not a rocket-ship to begin with.