They're charging you for orchestration, log storage, artifact storage, continued development of the runner binary itself and features available to self-hosted machines. What would your own machine do without the runner and service it connects to?
Agree. We're using C# in the backend for an MMO, and while I would still like _more_ control over the memory management, there's a ton of options for dropping down to a low level and avoiding the GC.
Stuff like ReadOnlySpan and IMemoryOwner are awesome to have as built-in language concepts.
> On top of that, most infra tooling—Grafana, Prometheus, Kubernetes, Terraform—is written in Go, so choosing Go for the backend comes with a ton of advantages over C#.
Not once have I ever had to interact with these technologies in a way that would benefit from my application using the same language. The language they are written in is irrelevant.
It's HTTPS. Not only are you getting checksumming from TCP, but any block that had bitflips would fail TLS decryption and would fail the entire transfer. You're not going to see silent corruption in transit.
TCP implementations are an abstraction that work 99.99% of the time, but are still vulnerable to two generals when you look close. TCP is implemented in the kernel with a buffer, the kernel responds with ACKs before an application reads the data.
There is no guarantee that the application reads from that buffer (e.g. the process could crash), so the client on the other end believes that the application has received the message even though it hasn't.
The kernel is handling at-least-once delivery with the network boundary and turning it into at-most-once with the process boundary.
You are in control. You can disable secure boot, you can install your own keys, you don't have to boot windows, you don't have to play games that demand invasive anti-cheat. Vote with your wallet.
Relying on the community to police cheaters is not an effective strategy for online skill-based matchmaking games. There's a reason game companies spend money and effort on anti-cheat and it's not because they're ignoring cheaper alternatives.
Wow how did I not think of that, surely the pattern of services getting worse to extract more money from users is due to someone saying a dirty word on the internet.
I would highly recommend getting a drone simulator off Steam. You can practice the controls and drill them into your fingertips during times when you can't fly the real thing (battery recharging, night time, weather, ...). Most advanced radios allow you to hook them up to the computer so you can fly with the exact same inputs, but a console controller is also acceptable.
Inspecting intermediate representations is trivial by just collecting them into a variable?
More complicated scenarios are exactly what streaming APIs excel at, by treating each step as a single transformation of data. Lack of a proper group by function is one of my classic examples for how Go forces you into an imperative style that's harder to understand at a glance.
C# has an official language server and an unofficial one (that unfortunately seems less maintained now). It works just fine with neovim.
Funny enough, it's the efforts of Omnisharp and the VSCode team that has so significantly improved the experience of using various other languages in open source editors due to the creation of LSP.
VMs as an isolation concept at the processor level are actually quite efficient, but unfortunately we use that to run whole operating systems which impose their own inefficiency. Micro-VMs that just run a process without an OS (or with an OS shim) are possible but we don't yet have good frameworks for building and using them.
They didn't "give the keys", they have a signing infrastructure that is meant to be used for validating organizational identity and origins of code. They have a quality checking system, but it's only required for certain levels of Microsoft backing. I think it used to be called the Windows Logo Program or something?
I can assure you the Windows advertisement platform goes through QA. You might need to think more about separating "what they do" from "how they do it".
They could say "third party kernel modules are installed at your own risk" and provide the usual level of business hours support. CrowdStrike fucked up and Microsoft is helping its customers recover from CrowdStrike's fuckup.
If some third party software you chose to install on your system added a kernel module and started causing kernel panics, would you blame the kernel maintainers?
I'm sure if MS decides to remove the ability for third parties to write code that runs in kernel mode in the name of security/reliability/whatever, this site would immediately turn on a dime and say that Microsoft is evil for removing user control over their machines.