fosk

Service Mesh really is about connectivity among all the service you are deploying in your architecture. Some of these services are going to be databases, some of them will be APIs, some of them will be caches and so on.

Once you have this underlying grid of services all connecting via a service mesh - in a reliable, secure and observable way - for some of these services you want to define governance and on-boarding rules, or you want to expose them externally as products that developer can consume and you then use an API GW to do those things.

In this regards, an API GW is just a service among the services you are running inside the service mesh.

Every waiter I know says that they need tips to survive in order to justify asking for tips. Those same people also fight with tooth and nails any argument that perhaps we can abolish tips and give them a living wage.

Real truth: most likely than not, they are making a killing with tips, much more than they would make with a fair salary.

Especially considering that the employer is obliged to pay them minimum wage anyways if they don’t receive enough tips.

The myth of the waiter not meeting ends is hard to believe when a decent waiter can pull in $200-500 (minimum) per night in a decent restaurant.

If their current job is unprofitable to a point that they rely on charity (aka “tips”) then they are probably in the wrong business or they should demand to be paid more by their employer.

Envoy has a proven track record in Mesh deployments, whereas in NGINX those primitives have to be built from scratch. On the other end, NGINX has proven track record as an Ingress Gateway and therefore it is the natural technology as an APIM solution.

You won’t need code for mutual TLS, certificate rotation, routing, canary load balancing, tracing, logging, service ACL, retries, circuit breakers, cross-region failovers and so on. The out of process proxy model makes these features portable across multiple stacks and programming languages too, which is a nice benefit.

Kong the company is the author of Kong Gateway, and Kuma Mesh. Two different products for different use-cases.

The alternative is writing more code in our applications.

As soon as we make any request that goes over a network, we need to make sure that connectivity cannot be disrupted and that observability is in place. LinkedIn famously wrote a "smart" client to do that in Java, that every team must use and they keep maintaining over time but that limits them in adopting non-JVM technology in the organization and creates technical debt over time.

Unlike Istio, this is built to work natively with minimal dependencies on every platform, not exclusively on Kubernetes, which means it can support both new greenfield applications and existing VM-based apps, so that networking policies that would typically be available only on K8s for new apps, can be applied on existing workload today. That, and it’s meant to be easier to use, which is another big problem with existing Service Mesh implementations.

Unlike Istio, this is built to work natively with minimal dependencies on every platform, not exclusively on Kubernetes, which means it can support both new greenfield applications and existing VM-based apps, so that networking policies that would typically be available only on K8s for new apps, can be applied on existing workload today. That, and it’s meant to be easier to use, which is another big problem with existing Service Mesh implementations.

This is a significant release for Kong. If you are a Kong user - or you just want to give it a try - I welcome any feedback that can help improve Kong.

BP literally sells gas at BP branded gas pumps, that’s pretty consumer in my book.

Kong is a fully fledged Lua/C application running on the LuaJIT VM and leveraging the NIO of Nginx, the same stack that powers the underlying proxy of companies like Cloudflare by the way.

In the US “community care” sounds like a great way of collecting more tax money while ultimately not implementing any program that works.

I want politicians to establish the rule of law and create a livable community by implementing a program (or community care checklist) with the tax money we are already providing.

Instead we have unaccountability, poverty, illness, misery and high taxes. All at the same time.

We need to abolish Proposition 47.

There are two extremes: lock everybody up or let everybody be on the street.

Both are wrong, and today the latter is being implemented. We need a balanced solution, but what we have today is not working (as a short walk around San Francisco - for example - will demonstrate).

What I want is not “hopes” or “more funding”. What I want is a plan. Saying that all we need is “community care” is too generic and broad which means things will never change.

I want 1-2-3 steps on how we are going to be dealing with these issues.

By labeling the solution as "community care" you are really not proposing a solution: what are the implementation steps for your solution?

We don't need more money, we don't need more programs. We need an implementation checklist.

You see, we as a society need to take it step by step and adopt a scientifical method in dealing with this problem. The first step is to prevent the mentally ill and drug-addicted from being a danger to the community and to themselves. So bring back the institutions as that first step.

Then a second step, we need to identify groups of people that we decide to re-introduce with "community care", monitor their results and keep them accountable. Each one of them will most likely respond differently to different implementations of what you call "community care". Give it a time duration too, and observe the behavior. And so on.

Finally, there will be individuals fully re-introduced into society. There will also be individuals that need a little bit of extra effort to make that happen. But like with any group, statistically there will be individuals too dangerous that must stay in the institutions for their own health.

As opposed to letting them commit crimes which in turn will never give them a chance to be less disadvantaged? This reasoning makes no sense. These are people that need help, letting them act unchecked will certainly not provide them with the assistance and re-qualification required to be reintroduced in the society.

This is so true, but why is it politically unpopular? Who would want to defend petty crime instead of condemning it? SF sometimes really makes no sense.

This a hundred times. Why is police in SF so bad at dealing with criminality? I am actually looking for a real answer.

San Francisco's administration is the poster child of corruption and mismanagement. It's a controversial topic because it comes across as a strong and opinionated comment, but decades of failed policies, unaccountability and lies give strength to the truth that the city of San Francisco is inadequate to enforce law and order and help the people who are - in the tech capital of the world - literally dying in the streets. I wish this was a bad dream, a nightmare, but it's the real life.

Banning electric scooters, taxing IPOs, soda taxes are all distractions that prevent the voters to focus on the problems that really matter: the needles, the drug abuse, the human feces, the absolute lack of enforcement of the most basic, essential, rules of society.

San Francisco must enforce the "Broken window policy", and it needs to start from the broken politicians and local administrators that are betraying their fiduciary duty and, by doing so, hurting the community.

In the US one of the biggest problems I have experienced is that drivers do not adhere to the international rule of having slow drivers on the right side of the freeway, especially in California.

As a result to this there are more lane splitting episodes (even within the speed limit) in order to finally being able to keep moving at a faster speed because the lane is effectively blocked by other drivers.

In addition to that, occasionally drivers will go faster (emergency, being late, and so on) and those same slow drivers that occupy each one of the 5 lanes at the same time will amplify the lane splitting, ultimately causing temporary traffic jams.

I never really understood why is this - in Europe we automatically merge to the right and always try to keep the leftest lane available for whoever needs to use it.

Most of the Kong adoption is free and comes from the open-source version, which you can download for free [1] and perhaps even contribute to [2]. We support an extensibility framework [3] that the community has been using to extend Kong (more than 500+ plugins on GitHub), including about 30 plugins that are shipped for free in the open-source distribution [4].

Kong is modular by design so that we could walk away from bundled complexity, and that's really why we created the concept of Plugins. Plugins can be installed, distributed, and used independently and they can be removed anytime (not just disabled, but entirely removed from the actual runtime).

[1] - https://konghq.com/install/

[2] - https://github.com/Kong/kong

[3] - https://docs.konghq.com/latest/plugin-development/

[4] - https://docs.konghq.com/hub/

What problems did you specifically encounter with the current bundled blacklist plugin?

We have been contributing back to the community with open-source projects and improvements to the other open-source projects we utilize, and using respectfully “other people’s work” in agreement to their licenses. Kong itself is open-source, and we have a long history of contributing back.

After a large major release there could be problems in specific use-cases, I would try again with a 1.0.x release or 1.1.x - Kong prouds itself to be very fast, so I would like to get in touch with you to dig down into any problem you have experienced. You can find me on Twitter at @subnetmarco

At Kong we actually like Envoy a lot, because we can deliver our superset features and ecosystem on top of any underlying proxy (NGINX, Envoy or anything that can process a stream or bytes).

Since Kong 1.0 it can run in both centralized or decentralized mode as a sidecar for Service Mesh. And since v1.1 the database can even be optional. We are executing very fast with the feedback of the community and our customers.

Yes, with DB Import.

Hello, Marco CTO of Kong. You can choose between two modes for Kong now. Kong with database (PostgreSQL or Cassandra) so that the configuration lives in the database and can be propagated automatically across any Kong node that connects to the same database. Or, starting from v1.1, Kong with no database dependency (db-less) with configuration stored in the declarative configuration file which now becomes the source of truth. In the latter, as long as every Kong node starts with the same declarative configuration file, every Kong node is effectively looking at the same data.

Marco, CTO of Kong here. Kong is not only built on top of Nginx, but also extends it significantly to provide features that Nginx doesn’t do out of the box (dynamic configuration, SRV records resolution, dynamic Plugin based system, data plane API and so on).

The point I am making is that no driver would ever want to work for Uber if Uber really was that bad. Turns out, drivers evaluated the pros and cons, and decided that regardless of their current treatment it is still better to be an Uber driver rather than going to work for somebody else.

I will leave the matter of discussing the legality of how they treat their contractors to our courts. But it's a fact that thousands of drivers still think it's worth driving for Uber regardless of any legal controversy that may (or may not) exist.