> Maybe they wanted to see if you would speak up and handle potential conflict. Or maybe they had a mixup between two candidates.
I did speak up during the call if that is really what they want me to do as I have literally 0 experience with that. It was literally my first action after I heard that. I pointed it out to them, that it is not what I was expecting from this position.
I agree that any company would struggle in such case. The thing is that everyone see that GH is pushing for more agents, their Copilot thingy, and AI everywhere, while basic functionality that people relies on is constantly failing.
If you push a lot of new features but your baseline is constantly failing, then something is wrong.
Author here - the goal from day 1 was to provide procfs/sysfs-like interface. The additional concepts that I would like to explore are bindings for Khepri[1] or Hobbes[2]. I see a lot of potential in such interface available from Erlang/Elixir/Gleam, as it can provide interesting use cases.
It is using VM green thread, just more primitive one. Just to be more like other implementations (except anode) in original article that do bare minimum to run. Also, this isn't that unusual to use just `spawn/1` for simple and short "one-off" processes.
Yes it is. Though until the last paragraph everything is done more or less to be an idiomatic approach to this task rather than "just optimisation". The VM flags part though is solely "optimizing for the benchmark, by cutting features that we would have needed in real-world scenarios". The "RemoteCall" code is pretty idiomatic approach to such problem.
It is in the original article [1], though I was made aware that Go implementation is also incorrect as `defer` in it make the memory usage to substantially raise. So instead of:
defer wg.Done()
time.Sleep(10 * time.Second)
In original article it should be:
time.Sleep(10 * time.Second)
wg.Done()
And memory usage will drop about 2x. I am no Go nor Java developer so I cannot say anything more.
I know about Podman, I just wanted to focus on systemd without additional tooling.
Erlang VM startup is ok, but it is not ultra fast, and it can be easily slowed down with many modules in releases or slow applications. Additionally as it was said - Erlang works best in case of long-running instances where the VM is handling spawning and managing of short lived internal processes.
First draft of this article also included the socket activation and FD passing section, but these were making the article way to long, so I moved them to the Part 2 where I will have more space for them. With socket activation Erlang VM startup time is negligible problem.
At the beginning I wanted to add all that information and options, but I thought that it can be overwhelming in this article. I wanted to focus on Erlang <-> systemd communication and basic options.
However it may be nice follow-up article where I will describe full hardening process.
Oh, I didn't know about `SocketBindDeny=` and `SocketBindAllow=`. This option may be a little troublesome in case of Distributed Erlang, but in recent versions it can be circumvented. Thanks, I will add it as a better option than adding capabilities.
This article? Not at all. Does you need to understand D-Bus to use systemd? Not at all. It is just implementation detail. I have an idea to leverage that in future to slap distributed service management on top of systemd, but in normal operations you will probably never spot that everything is D-Bus backed.
No, because these states are set on shutdown, and processes are killed in reverse order. So first the `draining` message will be set and then `drained`.
> Maybe they wanted to see if you would speak up and handle potential conflict. Or maybe they had a mixup between two candidates.
I did speak up during the call if that is really what they want me to do as I have literally 0 experience with that. It was literally my first action after I heard that. I pointed it out to them, that it is not what I was expecting from this position.
They didn't care. It was how they roll.