[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Nah, it's spam, OP has posted the same question at P.D multiple times across various communities. Dude either somehow doesn't know forum ettiquite or is a bot.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago

The real kicker is that I'm fairly sure we aren't really using them at any real scale - if we do it's to demo our product within the context of AI development. So if anything, they get a lot of free press when we do that. If they're gonna throw a fit over it, I'm sure we can work with some other "AI" company (that's what they bill themselves as) that wants the free marketing. Heck, I can't imagine the anaconda ecosystem working out if they keep threatening the developers that enrich that ecosystem.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes, I am aware.

I'm more asking if others are getting a wide spread of threatening messages across the org - even if they don't regularly use conda/anaconda.

It's like everyone glossed over "I don't use it in my job at all, and neither do my teammates" bit.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 13 points 2 years ago

Send the emails to your company’s legal team. It’s not your fight.

Already did, and agreed. I also asked the legal team if they could ask Anaconda.com to stop contacting me and threatening me personally. We shall see what happens.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 8 points 2 years ago

I'm not here to discuss the nuances of a startup versus medium sized company. Suffice it to say that much of the organization still views itself as a startup. Even though yes, you are right, it's a medium sized organization.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 15 points 2 years ago

Sure. I can agree that my company would be liable. But the company isn't mine. I just work here. And my team doesn't use any conda stuff at all.

Essentially, I am being personally threatened of a lawsuit even though I have no ability to make a licensing or purchase decision.

That just doesn't sit right with me.

70

As in title, my company is seeing a huge uptick in abusive messages from Anaconda.com seeking licensing revenue.

They're hitting many people across the org with legal threats - many with zero control of whether a person uses conda or not. I don't use it in my job at all, and neither do my teammates.

FWIW - we're a small-ish growing startup that just recently crossed the 200 employee line. Our product is a database often used for AI and there are many packages within the Anaconda ecosystem that are owned by us, not them. So I don't know why they'd be hounding us for licensing since the primary reason we'd use conda is to contribute to conda - not consume it.

It's starting the conversation of needing to drop conda support for future releases. If they're going to be this utterly vile, then why would we spend the effort packaging for them?

It's gotten so bad that I've made FTC complaints over this. I'm tired of the near daily threats for something I have zero control over.

If anyone else is experiencing this, I highly recommend reporting the abusive comms to the FTC here - https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/ - also forward the emails to your HR/Legal team so they know to contact the state AG.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

TPMs can be extracted with physical access

Sure, but IIRC, they'd still need my PIN (for TPM+PIN through cryptenroll). I don't think it's possible to do TPM backed encryption without a PIN on Linux.

EDIT: Oh wait, you can... Why anyone would is beyond me though.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This sounds like a lenovo machine. Or something with a similar MOK enrollment process.

I forget the exact process, but I recall needing to reset the secureboot keys in "install mode" or something, then it would allow me to perform the MOK enrollment. If secureboot is greyed out in the BIOS it is never linux's fault. That's a manufacturer issue.

Apparently, some models of Lenovo don't even enable MOK enrolment and lock it down entirely. Meaning that you'd need to sign with Microsofts keys, not your own. The only way to do this is to be a high-up microsoft employee OR use a pre-provided SHIM from the distribution.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface/Secure_Boot#Using_a_signed_boot_loader

For that case, Ubuntu and Fedora are better because, per the Ubuntu documentation they do this by default.

On Ubuntu, all pre-built binaries intended to be loaded as part of the boot process, with the exception of the initrd image, are signed by Canonical's UEFI certificate, which itself is implicitly trusted by being embedded in the shim loader, itself signed by Microsoft.

Once you have secureboot working on Ubuntu or Fedora, you could likely follow these steps to enable TPM+PIN - https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd-cryptenroll#Trusted_Platform_Module

There might be some differences as far as kernel module loading and ensuring you're using the right tooling for your distro, but most importantly, the bones of the process are the same.

OH! And if you aren't getting the secureboot option in the installer UI, that could be due to booting the install media in "legacy" or "MBR" mode. Gotta ensure it's in UEFI mode.

EDIT: One more important bit, you'll need to be using the latest nvidia drivers with the nvidia-open modules. Otherwise you'll need to additionally sign your driver blobs and taint your kernel. Nvidia-Open is finally "default" as of the latest driver, but this might differ on a per-distro basis.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago

Yeah, no kidding. The same systemd that enables the very things OP is trying to enable...

systemdboot + sbctl + systemd-cryptenroll and voila. TPM backed disk encryption with a PIN or FIDO2 token.

AFAIK this should be doable in Ubuntu, it just requires some command-line-fu.

Last I heard the Fedora installer was aiming to better support this type of thing - not so sure about Ubuntu.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago

Well, I mean, most corps trying to shoehorn AI into things are using Cloud implementations of the various "AI" solutions.

What, pay for our own datacenter? Nah.

Just import openai and add "the AI" that way. 🤦‍♂️

51

A coworker send me this fantastic piece on getting linux to boot off of google drive (and s3). Definitely a fun read!

(I'm not the author of this article)

1
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by th3raid0r@programming.dev to c/autistic_devs@programming.dev

Let's discuss able-ism in our industry.

For me, I mostly experience it whenever marketing has a "genius" idea that everyone should be little mini-marketers on social media. Essentially, they wanted us to make a lot more noise on social media and do cold outreach in our network. I was in no mood to exploit what little friends I have on social media. Not to mention the fact that I'm really no good at this stuff, and it's likely to backfire.

I put my foot down on that one - called the initiative ableist right in their "party" channel. And stated that if my participation was an issue, then I'd like to request non-participation as a reasonable accomodation for my autism.

Not sure that was good for my career though. Despite getting many DM's expressing thanks for standing up. I'm pretty sure higher ups will just think I'm "not a team player".

So did it work? Yes, but also there may be other consequences to my direct nature that I haven't seen yet.

1

As in description, we need art!

I'm awful at art and don't want to use DALLE/Midjourney if I can avoid it.

So yeah, if anyone has a good banner image or icon image in mind, DM me!

19

After not getting what I needed out of a "managing up" post, I decided to create this community. Essentially the problem is that often we need to solve a social problem that others might deem "trivial". And when folks deem it trivial, they fail to provide anything except encouraging words.

This community will try to bridge that gap.

NTs / Allistics are very welcome, BUT they must understand that we need details, we need patience, and we need kindness around matters of business politics and office socializing.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago

I’d suggest to just set up automatons to fix those things automatically. Lets say 80% CPU for 5 minutes it too high. Ok, add an auto-scale rule at 65% CPU for 3 minutes to add an extra node to the cluster to load balance the CPU load

Sure, if it were a normal service and not a distributed database that requires days to scale. Days. It's not, "add one node" and we're good. It's Add Node - Migrate Data - Add Node - Migrate Data... And in many cases, we have explicit instructions NOT to scale the customer because they won't be able to afford the larger cluster.

Also, would you auto-scale for a 5 minute blip that goes away in that time and doesn't consistently recur? I certainly wouldn't. The customer might not be able to pay for the size we put them on.

Our customers can simultaneously demand that we respond to all alerts AND not to scale their cluster. Who's fuckin' idea this was, I've no clue.

Like it sounds like you’re saying the issues are caused by systems not being robust and lack of automation… If they’re this scared of outages and breaking SLA, they should work on having less outages, or having fall-backs when they occur.

No. That's reading far more into my statement than I hoped. The reliability is indeed there - it's VERY unlikely our managed database goes down to a technology issue in our control. If it does, it's usually an operator error thing. However, if it were down to just operator error alerts and things actually impacting the end users, my job would be a dream!

Automation is somewhat there, but there's a few stakeholders that insist on human validated steps. So, while I have an ansible playbook for most issues, operating that playbook takes hours.

But it could get pretty difficult to get management to do this kinda things from random suggestions from some SRE. I’d probably talk with the team-lead about this, and other people in your team, cause you’re probably not the only one with these issues. And then have a meeting with the entire dev/SRE team and management to point out it’s not sustainable the way it’s going, and with suggestions to improve it

Sure, if it were technical. But this is largely not a technical issue, as you had assumed. The issue is that there is someone, with power, who gets to say that we must follow unreasonable customer requests to the letter. Even if those requests run counter to our sustainability.

[-] th3raid0r@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago

In the most recent case, perhaps that could be a fix. Sure. But that won't work for every customer we have. Its certainly an idea worth bringing up to the team provided management doesn't shoot it down. Thanks!

25
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by th3raid0r@programming.dev to c/ask_experienced_devs@programming.dev

I'm just so exhausted these days. We have formal SLA's, but its not like they're ever followed. After all, Customer X needs to be notified within 5 minutes of any anomalous events in their cluster, and Customer Y is our biggest customer, so we give them the white glove treatment.

Yadda yadda, bla bla. So on and so forth, almost every customer has some exception/difference in SLAs.

I was hired on to be an SRE, but I'm just a professional dashboard starer at this point. The amount of times I've been alerted in the middle of the night because CPU was running high for 5 minutes is too damn high. Just so I can apologize to Mr. Customer that they maybe had a teensy slowdown during that time.

If I try to get us back to fundamentals and suggest we should only alert on impact, not short lived anomalies, there is some surface level agreement, but everyone seems to think "well we might miss something, so we need to keep it".

It's like we're trying to prevent outages by monitoring for potential issues rather than actually making our system more robust and automate-able.

How do I convince these people that this isn't sustainable? That trying to "catch" incidents before they happen is a fools errand. It's like that chart about the "war on drugs" where it shows exponential expense growth as you try to prevent ALL drug usage (which is impossible). Yet this tech company seems to think we should be trying to prevent all outages with excessive monitoring.

And that doesn't even get into the bonkers agreements we make with customers to agree to do a deep dive research on why 2 different environments have a response time that differs by 1ms.

Or the agreements that force us to complete customer provided training - while not assessing how much training we already committed to. It's entirely normal to do 3-4x HIPAA / PCI / Compliance trainings when everyone else in the org only has to do one set of those.

I'm at a point where I'm considering moving on. This job just isn't sustainable and there's no interest in the org to make it sustainable.

But perhaps one of y'all managed to fix something similar in their org with a few key conversations and some effort? What other things could I try as a sort of final "Hail Mary" before looking to greener pastures?

view more: next ›

th3raid0r

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF