Without open-source, there'd be no macOS.. So good thing, it exists.

> that is so vague it need to be described as a appearing to imply a call for deportation

This is just bad journalism. Here's what DHH wrote:

> When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.

https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a

Probably next generation.

There's a difference between relying on Ai and having any llm generated content in your repos.

This only works if all you care about is the code, like the author mentioned. But if you want to understand what and why the llm did something, or you want it to explain it to you, you're again stuck with the output.

Well, if your cert-manager distributes its own CA, you'd still need the clients to trust the CA, even in k8s.

True but you can have cert-manager issue public certs then create service accounts for off cluster things to be able to pull the cert from the Secret so k8s+cert-manager acts as a local broker that handles renewal.

You can also invert and have k8s cronjobs provision the generated certs into other infra

With this setup, you don't have to worry about the RHEL certbot snap updating to a broken version which gets blocked by SELinux...

Because they'll just paste your remarks in their llm, let it correct the text and send it back to you.

Where are these built? Can I see the Dockerfiles? How are they licensed? I get that they are free as in beer, but not libre/FLOSS?

Currently, yes free as in beer. We build every component directly from source in a SLSA 3 environment we run (mostly in GCP). Making the Dockerfiles available is a fair question, not something we’ve done thus far because it’s not particularly useful if you don’t have all the infrastructure building the components.

Do you have particular scenarios you’d like the Dockerfiles for or is it just for transparency/ trust (which is a totally valid reason of course)?

> Do you have particular scenarios you’d like the Dockerfiles for or is it just for transparency/ trust (which is a totally valid reason of course)?

The latter. You or an attacker could tamper with the images - however even with the Dockerfiles I can't be sure that the provided images are built from the Dockerfiles, so in the end I'd have to trust you anyway. Also I'd be curious how you build the images.

Thanks for your answer!

Totally get it… practically if you don’t want to have to deal with constantly updating images you have to have some degree of trust in whomever you get them from… that said, we try to be as transparent as possible with a cryptographically verifiable SBOM for every build of every image, signing every image, providing detailed compliance test results for FIPS, STIG, CIS (see the compliance tab on each image listing)

Your feedback about Dockerfiles is good though and probably something we can easily add to image listings. I opened an issue for us to add.

Note that we also make our package manager freely available in Community Edition as well, which can make the Dockerfile availability more useful.

Would be nice to see logs from the CI runs building the images, to see the hashes of inputs and outputs. Useful, I guess unless the logs were tampered with also.

What about security cameras, traffic cameras, cameras on vehicles, etc? Most public areas in urban settings are already being recorded.

You can almost always see the people who are bad at concealing what they're doing

You'd presumely managed that customization with Ansible...