That’s comforting to know; that wasn’t true in the past for ext4 over lvm (is it true now?).
But what is that command? And how do you know which disk has gone bad?
I am sure I can get an answer from Google / Claude / ChatGPT, but a guide is incomplete without it - and the failure report should be active like a beep or flashing hardware light - I typically log into my NAS only a few times a year. A motd or other banner isn’t sufficient.
I still pay for snooty, and the reason for that is that when a disk goes bad (not if; when) I pop its tray out, replace the disk, pop the tray with the disk back in, click a couple of widgets, and that’s it. I know it will be rebuilt properly.
(And I know I have to do that, because when the disk fails it beeps and lights a led near the bad disk)
It’s easy to build a NAS such as the one described in this article, but in the long run, data loss is significantly more likely.
Also, any guide like this that doesn’t guide you through “disk 3 failed, this is how you safely replace it” is imho incomplete, even if it doesn’t go through telling you how you know a disk has failed.
What you seem to be saying is “I want no precedence or associativity - I just want explicit parentheses everywhere” which is a fine choice. But not a common one.
The reason APL made that choice (and its descendants followed) is that it had many tens of operators. There’s no intuitive or otherwise accepted order among them. Which means it’s either all parentheses (like you seem to prefer) or a simple rule (left-of-right). There’s basically no other solution.
Forth and Lisp also dropped precedence and associativity rules, each in their own way.
APL / K / J (and friends) evaluate things "left-of-right" (could be thought of as "right-to-left"), that is 1+23-4 is parsed 1+(2(3-4)) - there is no operator precedence. It is weird at first, but refreshingly simple and effective once you manage to overcome indoctrination you received since elementary school.
My guess would be because too many users held out with Win10, are not really a potential income stream, and MS would rather keep them MS customers than Linux or Mac (their next machine might be a Neo rather than Win11 these days).
The cost to Microsoft is essentially zero if they ate already committed to these security updates (and they are, at least for the LTSC branch and some government contracts)
They do, until a configuration endless loop brings down their production system.
This is not really different than C vs Rust, or even Perl regular expressions (unbounded execution time) vs real regular expression. With great powers comes great abilities to shoot yourself in the foot.
The power/guarantee balance is delicate, and you can’t hold the stick at both ends. People will always complain.
Many domains are better served by a more limited programming language, so you can analyze a program and/or make guarantees about it.
Real regexes (actually regular…) are infinitely better than Python code matching the same string (if they are sufficient) - you can compute their intersection, union, complement; check if they can match anything at all (and generate an example automaticallly).
For software builds, Bazel and others use Starlark, which is a restricted Python subset, so builds can be guaranteed finite and can be reasoned about.
Ansible may or may not offer any benefits in return for the limits (I am not an ansible guru), but in general, most tasks do not need a Turing complete configuration/specification language - and it is then better to NOT have Turing completeness.
Ahhm. At previous $DAYJOB, I inherited a WPF app written in 2012; I stumbled upon several WONTFIX bugs through the years - mostly having to do with shared memory bitmaps, having to manually call GC at times, and a host of other things.
Stable, but many issues. Stay away if you value your sanity and do anything nontrivial.
KDB v1 is from sometime in the late 1990’s (I met v2 in 2002; but v1 was internal use only at some investment bank).
But that follows A and A+ which were extremely column oriented and date to early 1990s or even late 1980s ; and to various APL implementations going back to the 1960’s
Columnar DBs were very much a thing among APL users (finance and operations research) but weren’t really known outside those fields - and even in those fields, there was a period of amnesia in the late ‘90s/early 2000’s