The question wasn't if Zuck has been successful, it was if Meta has succeeded at anything new. When was the last time Meta made something original, brought to market and had success with it?
fwiw; I had unexplained anxiety, fatigue, poor sleep and cognitive decline as a post-COVID induced histamine intolerance with a few bonus attributes. High amounts of histamine would accumulate in my mast cells then get released in 3-5am, undermining sleep and also inhibiting serotonin.
It took me about four years to fully understand my condition. Hope you figure out what is bothering you. The body is incredibly complex.
For me, the appeal of local compute is first and foremost confidentiality and having the possibility to run my 200K documents through an LLM just to see what happen without having to consider the cost.
This post conflates scalability and performance. PostgreSQL is fast on smallish systems, but try adding more CPU cores and you'll see performance gains will not be linear at all. Modern server can ship with 256 or more cores and a single instance of PostgreSQL will struggle to take advantage of these.
We had a SCSI zip-drive at our uni and it was a brilliant way to drag megabytes of content home. Even though I had amazing internet (2Mbit shared by 100+ ppl), the zip drive would still be a good way of getting stuff home.
Then I got to experience the click of death and the internet connection was bumped to 100Mbit and I didn't need to replace my zip drive.
You have to deal with a lot more stuff. You have to order/pay for a server (capex), mount it somewhere, wire up lights-out-mgmt and recovery and do a few more tasks that the provider has already done.
Then, say if the motherboard gives up, you have to do quite a bit of work to get it replaced, you might be down for hours or maybe days.
For a single server I don't think it makes sense. For 8 servers, maybe. Depends on the opportunity cost.
MoE is excellent for the unified memory inference hardware like DGX Sparc, Apple Studio, etc. Large memory size means you can have quite a few B's and the smaller experts keeps those tokens flowing fast.
We've been pushing 1.5Tbps with TLS in lab settings. I've yet to see any other HTTP product being able to saturate these kind of networking. There is lots to be said about threading, but it is able to push a lot bandwidth.
And yes, I think the ergonomics are bad. Having varnish lose visibility into the transport means ACLs are gone, JA3 and similar are gone and the opportunity to defend from DoS are much more limited.
Crypto used to be expensive in 2010. It is no longer that expensive. All the serialization, on the other hand, that is expensive and latency is adding up.
Every single HTTP server in use out there has TLS support. The users expectation is that the HTTP server can deal with TLS.
I feel like this is captures the point very well. Google removing this software, means that for 99% of the users on the platform, the choice to play this gets taken away from user.
Varnish Software released hitch to facilitate TLS for varnish-cache.
Now that Varnish has been renamed, Varnish Software will keep what has been referred to as a downstream version or a fork, which has TLS built in, basically taking the TLS support from Varnish Enterprise.
This makes Hitch a moot point. So, I assume it'll receive security updates, but not much more.
Wrt. separation of concerns. Varnish with in-core TLS can push terabits per second (synthetic load, but still). Sure, for my blog, that isn't gonna matter, but having a single component to run/update is still valuable.
In particular using hitch/haproxy/nginx for backend is cumbersome.
fwiw; Varnish Software still maintains and supports hitch, but we can't say we see a bright future for it. Both the ergonomics and the performance of not being integrated into Varnish are pretty bad. It was the crutch we leaned as it was the best thing we could make available.
I would recommend migrating off within a year or two.
I think it is interesting that these pieces of software are now being inspired by Midnight Commander and are being built by people who never worked with or experiences the original, Norton Commander.
the whole point of varnish software keeping a public version of "vinyl cache" as "varnish cache" with TLS is to give people a way to access a FOSS version with native TLS.
I think TLS is table-stakes now, and has been for the last 10 years, at least.