标签：#devops

Early in building our cloud infrastructure, we had a problem nobody talks about — because it happens so slowly you almost don't notice it. We had eight separate Helm charts. One for services that needed KEDA scaling. One for standard HPA. One for backends that exposed HTTP. One for workers that didn't. One for Azure Functions. One for frontends. Eight charts, all living in the same repository, all drifting apart from each other. The charts started as copies of each other. Over time each one picked up its own fixes, its own conventions, its own slightly-different take on security contexts and ServiceAccount annotations and rolling update strategy. Nobody made a decision to diverge. It just happened. Every time we fixed something in one chart — say, wiring up Azure Workload Identity to every ServiceAccount — we had to remember to propagate that fix to seven others. Sometimes we did. Sometimes we didn't. We'd find out when something broke in an unexpected way six weeks later. Helm chart drift is more dangerous than dependency drift. At least with a dependency, you know what version you're on. With eight loosely related charts, you just don't know what you don't know. This is the story of how we replaced all eight with a single versioned chart, published to an OCI registry, and consumed by 70+ services through ArgoCD multi-source Applications — and what that structure forced us to think clearly about. The Two-Questions Framework The first thing we had to do was figure out why we had eight charts in the first place. What was actually different between services that justified a different chart? We landed on two questions: Does it expose HTTP? — This determines whether it needs an ingress, a Service, liveness/readiness probes on an HTTP path. What drives its scaling? — Standard CPU/memory HPA, or event-driven scaling via KEDA (Azure Service Bus, Event Hubs)? That's it. Everything else — security contexts, Workload Identity, pod anti-affinity, rolling update strategy, how s

Infrastructure as Code (IaC) has revolutionized how we provision and manage cloud resources. Tools like Terraform, Pulumi, and OpenTofu allow us to define infrastructure using code, making it versionable, repeatable, and scalable. However, with great power comes great responsibility. Misconfigurations in IaC can lead to massive security breaches, such as publicly exposed data storage or overly permissive access roles. This is where Static Application Security Testing (SAST) comes in. SAST tools analyze your source code to find security vulnerabilities before the code is deployed. In this article, we'll explore how to apply SAST to a Terraform project using Checkov , a popular open-source static analysis tool for IaC, and how to automate this process using GitHub Actions. (Note: We are intentionally avoiding tfsec for this demonstration to explore other powerful alternatives). Why Checkov? Checkov, created by Bridgecrew (now part of Prisma Cloud), is a static code analysis tool for IaC. It scans cloud infrastructure provisioned using Terraform, Terraform plan, Cloudformation, Kubernetes, Dockerfile, Serverless, or ARM Templates and detects security and compliance misconfigurations. It includes hundreds of built-in policies covering security and compliance best practices for AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. The Demo Scenario: A Vulnerable S3 Bucket Let's start by creating a simple Terraform configuration for an AWS S3 bucket. We will intentionally introduce a security misconfiguration: making the bucket public without encryption. Create a file named main.tf : # main.tf provider "aws" { region = "us-east-1" } resource "aws_s3_bucket" "my_vulnerable_bucket" { bucket = "my-company-public-data-bucket-12345" } # Misconfiguration 1: Public Read Access resource "aws_s3_bucket_acl" "example" { bucket = aws_s3_bucket . my_vulnerable_bucket . id acl = "public-read" } If we were to deploy this, anyone on the internet could read the contents of this bucket. Let's see how Checkov can

In modern software development, Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines...

Your codebase almost certainly relies on RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography — TLS, JWTs, SSH keys, signed tokens. All of it is breakable by a large enough quantum computer (Shor's algorithm), and "harvest now, decrypt later" means data you encrypt today can be captured today and decrypted later. Regulators noticed: CNSA 2.0 (US federal + suppliers), DORA (EU financial entities, applies from Jan 2025), and NIS2 now mandate strict cryptographic risk management — which in practice means knowing where your quantum-vulnerable crypto lives, a cryptographic bill of materials (CBOM). Most teams can't answer "where is our RSA/ECC?" off the top of their head. Here's how to make CI answer it for you, on every push, for free. What we're building A GitHub Action that scans your repo, grades its post-quantum readiness A–F , writes a CycloneDX 1.6 CBOM , and — if you want — fails the build when classically-broken crypto (MD5, RC4, 3DES, deprecated TLS) shows up. Step 1 — try it in your browser first (30 seconds, nothing uploaded) Before touching CI, paste a package.json / requirements.txt / cipher list into the in-browser scanner and see your grade. It runs entirely client-side — no upload: https://throndar.ai/cbom Step 2 — add it to CI (the 5 lines) # .github/workflows/pqc-readiness.yml name : PQC readiness on : [ push , pull_request ] jobs : scan : runs-on : ubuntu-latest steps : - uses : actions/checkout@v4 - uses : brandonjsellam-Releone/pq-readiness-scorecard@v1 with : path : . That's it. The Action is self-contained and dependency-free — no npm install , no setup step. On the next push it prints a scorecard to the job summary: Post-Quantum Readiness Scorecard: D (52/100) — Quantum-vulnerable — migrate 3 files · broken-classical 0 · quantum-broken 4 · weakened 1 · resistant 0 Step 3 — see findings in the Security tab (SARIF) The Action emits SARIF 2.1.0. Upload it and every finding shows up as a code-scanning alert: - id : pqc uses : brandonjsellam-Releone/pq-readiness-score

Osloq — ใช้ AI หาสาเหตุ bug แทน เวลา AI coding tools เสนอจะ "fix bug ให้" — เราได้แต่กด Accept หรือไม่ก็ Reject สองปุ่ม สองทางเลือก แต่เราไม่เคยรู้ว่า: AI รู้ได้ยังไงว่า bug เกิดจากตรงนี้? มัน reproduce แล้วหรือแค่อ่านโค้ดแล้วเดา? ถ้าเรา accept — มันจะพังของอย่างอื่นไหม? Osloq เลือกทางที่สาม: ไม่ใช่ "fix ให้" — แต่ " หาให้เจอแล้วบอกว่าเกิดอะไรขึ้น " Osloq คืออะไร Osloq เป็น AI agent ที่ทำหน้าที่ "นักสืบ bug" มีคนเปิด GitHub Issue → Osloq อ่าน → trace โค้ด → reproduce ใน sandbox → ส่งรายงานพร้อมหลักฐาน ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ GitHub Issue: "ปุ่ม submit กดไม่ติดบน Safari" │ └─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Osloq: │ │ 1. อ่าน issue → เข้าใจว่า "ปุ่มไม่ทำงาน" │ │ 2. trace โค้ด: จาก handler → service → DOM event │ │ 3. reproduce: รัน Safari ใน sandbox → ปุ่มไม่ติดจริง │ │ 4. จับหลักฐาน: logs, screenshots, call stack │ │ 5. สรุป: "event listener ใช้ 'click' แต่ Safari │ │ บน iOS 18 ไม่ bubble event — ต้องใช้ 'pointerdown' │ └─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Report บน GitHub Issue: │ │ 📸 screenshot ของ Safari ที่ปุ่มไม่ทำงาน │ │ 📋 console error: "Unhandled Promise Rejection" │ │ 🔗 code path: handler.ts:42 → form.ts:17 │ │ 💡 suggestion: เปลี่ยน event type │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ คุณอ่าน report → เข้าใจปัญหา → ตัดสินใจเอง ว่าจะแก้ยังไง ต่างจาก "AI Fix Everything" ยังไง Devin / Sweep AI Osloq แนวคิด "Fix the bug" "Find the cause" ทำงานยังไง เขียนโค้ดใหม่ → เปิด PR Reproduce → รายงาน evidence เราเห็นอะไร PR diff ภาพ, log, call stack, บทสรุป ใครตัดสินใจ AI (เราแค่ merge) เรา (AI บอกว่าอะไรผิด) ถ้าผิดพลาด โค้ดผิดเข้า main Report ผิด — ไม่กระทบโค้ด ความเสี่ยง สูง — AI แก้โค้ดโดยตรง ต่ำ — AI แค่แนะนำ ทำไมถึง "สบายใจกว่า" 1. คุณเห็นหลักฐาน — ไม่ใช่แค่ diff ❌ "Fixed button click handler — please review" → review 300 บรรทัด — ไม่รู้ว่าแก้ถูกไหม ✅ "Button

While setting up a self-managed Kubernetes cluster on Azure VMs, I hit this error when running sudo kubeadm init on a Standard_B1s VM (1 vCPU / 1 GB RAM): [ERROR NumCPU]: the number of available CPUs 1 is less than the required 2 After checking Stack Overflow and the official Kubernetes documentation ("Before you begin"), I confirmed that kubeadm requires at least 2 CPUs to install the control plane. The fix: I stopped the VM and resized it from Standard_B1s to Standard_B2s (2 vCPU / 4 GB RAM) from the Azure portal, then ran kubeadm init again — the preflight checks passed and the control plane initialized successfully. Posting this in case it helps someone hitting the same issue on a low-tier cloud VM. Thanks to the community for the answers that pointed me in the right direction!

I had just aced my mentor’s Docker exam, so of course I thought I understood containers. I had said all the right words: namespaces, cgroups, images, layers, PID 1, Kubernetes Pods. Then I typed my first serious command and Linux reminded me that knowing the nouns is not the same thing as building the thing. $ sudo unshare -p 1 test unshare: failed to execute 1: No such file or directory That was the opening scene. I had not even built anything yet. I had typed the flags wrong and accidentally asked unshare to execute a program called 1 . This was going to be less “implement Docker” and more “let the kernel correct my confidence, one error at a time.” v1: namespaces, or the first time PID 1 lied to me The first version was supposed to be easy: run a process in a new PID namespace and prove it sees itself as PID 1. So I ran the command the way I thought it worked: $ sudo unshare --pid bash # echo $$ 25184 That was not PID 1. That was just embarrassing. The rule I had missed is simple: PID namespaces apply to children. The process that calls unshare --pid does not magically become PID 1. You need to fork. The first child born into the new namespace becomes PID 1. So the working version was: $ sudo unshare --pid --fork bash # echo $$ 1 That one line changed the tone. I was inside a different process universe. The shell thought it was process 1. Signals felt different. Orphans came home to it. Then I ran ps , and got humbled again. # ps -o pid,ppid,comm PID PPID COMMAND 25310 25304 bash 25344 25310 ps That made no sense at first. I was PID 1, but ps was showing host-looking PIDs. The next reveal: ps does not ask the kernel some pure “what processes exist?” question. It reads files. If /proc still points at the host procfs, your tools will tell you the host story. So I remounted /proc from inside the namespace: # mount -t proc proc /proc # ps -o pid,ppid,comm PID PPID COMMAND 1 0 bash 7 1 ps That was when it clicked. The namespace did not become real to my eyes until /pr

Introduction In today's fast-paced development cycles, security can no longer be an...

Bruno — API Client แบบ Git-Native ที่เก็บทุกอย่างเป็นไฟล์ เวลา dev team ต้องเทส API — เครื่องมือที่ทุกคนนึกถึงคือ Postman กับ Insomnia แต่ปัญหาคลาสสิกที่เจอกันแทบทุกทีม: "Postman collection อยู่ไหน?" — "ใน account ผมไง" "ขอ invite หน่อย" — "เดี๋ยวส่ง link ให้... เอ๊ะ หมด free tier แล้ว" นี่คือ pain point ที่ทำให้คนจำนวนมากมองหาเครื่องมือใหม่ — และหนึ่งในนั้นคือ Bruno Bruno คืออะไร Bruno เป็น API client แบบ desktop app (มีทั้ง macOS, Linux, Windows) ที่มีแนวคิดแตกต่างจาก Postman โดยสิ้นเชิง: Postman Bruno เก็บข้อมูลที่ไหน Cloud account ไฟล์ใน project (Git repo) ต้อง login ไหม ✅ ต้อง ❌ ไม่ต้อง Collection format JSON (binary-ish) Plain text (Bru files) Collaborate ผ่าน Postman cloud ผ่าน Git (PR, diff, review) Open source ❌ ✅ (GitHub: 45K+ stars) Offline ไม่ค่อยได้ ✅ ทำงานออฟไลน์ได้เต็มที่ หัวใจของ Bruno คือ "API Client ไม่ใช่ Platform" — มันคือเครื่องมือธรรมดาที่เก็บข้อมูลเป็นไฟล์ — เหมือนที่ dev ทั่วไปเก็บโค้ด จุดเด่น 1. Collection คือไฟล์ — เก็บใน Git ได้ my-project/ ├── src/ ├── bruno/ │ ├── users/ │ │ ├── GET users.bru │ │ ├── POST create user.bru │ │ └── DELETE user.bru │ ├── auth/ │ │ └── POST login.bru │ └── bruno.json └── .git/ ทุก API request เป็นไฟล์ .bru — plain text — diff ได้, PR review ได้, merge ได้ — เหมือนโค้ด meta { name: GET users type: http seq: 1 } get { url: https://api.example.com/users body: none auth: bearer } 2. ไม่มี Cloud — ข้อมูลอยู่กับคุณ Bruno ไม่เคยส่งข้อมูลขึ้น server — ทุกอย่างอยู่บนเครื่องคุณ ทั้ง request, response, environment variables สำหรับทีมที่ทำงานกับข้อมูล sensitive (banking, healthcare, government) — ข้อนี้สำคัญมาก 3. ใช้ Git เป็น Collaboration Tool แทนที่จะ "invite teammate เข้า workspace" (แบบ Postman) — คุณแค่: git add bruno/ git commit -m "add user API collection" git push เพื่อน git pull → เปิด Bruno → เห็น collection เดียวกันทันที 4. Environment Variables — แบบเดียวกับที่ dev ใช้ # environments/production.bru vars { base_url : https : //api.production.com api_key : {{ PROD_API_KEY }} } เปลี่ยน environment ด้วยการคลิก —

terraform plan is honest about what it's going to do. The problem is it's also verbose, repetitive, and full of cosmetic changes (like recomputed tags) mixed in with real ones (like a database instance scheduled for -/+ replace ). On a 400-line plan, the dangerous changes hide. This is the kind of task AI is actually good at: skimming structured text, flagging the entries that matter, ignoring the rest. But "paste plan into Claude" is not the workflow. There's a specific shape to this that works. Why people get this wrong The natural instinct is to copy the plan output and paste it into a chat: Terraform will perform the following actions : # aws_instance.web will be updated in-place ~ resource "aws_instance" "web" { id = "i-0abc123def456" ~ instance_type = "t3.small" - > "t3.medium" ... The model will respond with a sentence about each line. You'll scroll. You'll skim. You'll miss the -/+ replace on the database because it's in the middle of 30 routine updates. This is the same failure mode as pasting a wall of logs and asking "is anything wrong?" The model is too polite to skip things. You need to tell it to. The format that actually works: JSON terraform show -json tfplan outputs a structured representation of the plan that's much easier to reason about than the text format. Two reasons: The "actions" field is explicit. Each resource_change has a change.actions array — ["create"] , ["delete"] , ["update"] , or ["delete", "create"] for replace. No ambiguity. You can filter before pasting. With jq , you can extract only the dangerous changes, drop the noise, and feed a 20-line summary into the AI instead of a 400-line plan. Try this: terraform plan -out = tfplan terraform show -json tfplan > plan.json # Get just the dangerous changes jq '[.resource_changes[] | select(.change.actions | contains(["delete"])) | {address, type, actions: .change.actions}]' plan.json That's the AI's input. Compact, unambiguous, and pre-filtered to the changes that need a human decision.

Bolting an LLM onto your pull requests is a weekend project. Building AI code review that your engineers don't disable within two weeks is the actual problem. The failure mode isn't missing bugs — it's crying wolf. Post twenty nitpicks and three hallucinations on someone's PR and they'll mute the bot forever. This is the pipeline we built on Mattrx to earn — and keep — that trust. Mattrx is our multi-tenant marketing-analytics SaaS: ~95k lines of C#, 11 engineers, and enough pull requests that senior-reviewer time was the bottleneck. We tried the naive thing first — pipe the changed file into a model, post the output — and watched the team stop reading it in nine days . TL;DR Dimension Human-only / naive AI (before) AI review pipeline (after) Coverage selective / whole-file dump every PR, diff-focused First-review latency ~6 hours (wait for a human) ~3 minutes (AI first pass) Context none / a naked file diff + call sites + conventions Reviewers one mega-prompt specialized dimensions, in parallel False positives ~35% (so it gets ignored) ~6% (adversarially verified) Merge control human, or nothing severity gate; human always decides Governance none gateway: audit, cost, secret redaction ~90 PRs/week across 11 engineers; the pipeline reviews 100%. First-pass review latency 6h → 3 min. False-positive rate ~35% → ~6% — the single number that decides whether the bot lives or dies. Escaped defects to production down ~40%; senior-reviewer time down ~30%. ~$0.05 per PR (cheap model for style, frontier only for correctness). The one mental shift: AI code review is not about finding issues — models find plenty. It's about not crying wolf . The product is trust, and trust is a false-positive-rate problem. Verify before you comment; let the AI propose and the human dispose. The naive approach — and why it collapses // BEFORE: dump the whole changed file into one prompt, post whatever comes back. foreach ( var file in pr . ChangedFiles ) { var text = await File . ReadAllTextAsyn

Use Docker and a disposable mailbox to verify AWS SES delivery in CI before release without touching shared inboxes or leaking test mail. Shipping an app that "sent the email" is not the same as shipping an app that delivered a usable message. In AWS stacks, the miss usually shows up late: a container points at the wrong SES region, a preview environment uses stale credentials, or the message lands with broken links after templating. A disposable email address check is a simple final guardrail, and its easy to automate when your mail sender already runs in Docker. This is the pattern I recommend when teams are searching for temp mail com style testing, but need something cleaner for production-like CI. The goal is not to replace unit tests or the Amazon SES mailbox simulator . The goal is to prove that your real app container, with real environment wiring, can send one controlled message and that the inbox content is worth shipping. Why this check belongs in the release path AWS SES is strict in useful ways. If your account is still in the sandbox, you can only send to verified identities or the mailbox simulator . Even after production access, delivery problems still happen becuase the application layer and the cloud layer drift separately. A practical smoke test catches things that mocks often miss: wrong AWS_REGION or SES endpoint selection missing secrets in the container runtime template variables that render empty in preview builds broken confirmation links caused by bad environment URLs unexpected sender identity changes between staging and release That list looks basic, but it doesnt stay basic when three services, one worker, and a release job all touch outbound email. A small Docker pattern that keeps the test deterministic Keep the sender in the same Docker image you deploy, but trigger a narrow email scenario from CI. For example, seed a temporary user, call the notification path once, then poll a disposable inbox API for the matching subject line. servi

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) has announced the graduation of OpenTelemetry, elevating the project to the foundation's highest level of maturity and formally recognizing it as production-ready for enterprise use. By Craig Risi

Introduction As data volumes continue to grow, running aggregation queries directly on raw datasets becomes increasingly expensive. Business dashboards, analytics platforms, and reporting systems often execute the same calculations repeatedly—such as total sales, daily active users, page views, or revenue trends. While ClickHouse® is designed to process analytical workloads at remarkable speed, repeatedly scanning billions of records still consumes valuable CPU, memory, and storage resources. This is where AggregatingMergeTree proves its value. Rather than calculating aggregates every time a query is executed, AggregatingMergeTree stores intermediate aggregation states that are merged automatically in the background. This approach allows analytical queries to read compact, pre-aggregated datasets, resulting in dramatically faster response times and reduced infrastructure costs. In this guide, you'll learn how AggregatingMergeTree works, why aggregate states matter, how to build an automated aggregation pipeline using Materialized Views, and when this engine is the right choice for your ClickHouse® workloads. What is AggregatingMergeTree? AggregatingMergeTree is a specialized ClickHouse® table engine designed to store aggregate function states instead of raw records. Unlike the standard MergeTree engine, which stores every inserted row, AggregatingMergeTree keeps partially aggregated values that ClickHouse combines during background merge operations. This significantly reduces the amount of data that must be processed when generating analytical reports. Because much of the computational work happens during data ingestion, dashboards and reporting applications can retrieve summarized information much more efficiently. Typical scenarios include: Sales reporting Website traffic analytics Financial summaries IoT sensor monitoring Business KPI dashboards Application observability metrics Why Use AggregatingMergeTree? Imagine an online marketplace processing millions of tr

` As developers, we spend our days optimizing code, but how many of us optimize our taxes? Let's break down exactly how much tax a typical US developer pays in 2026 — with real numbers. The 2026 Federal Tax Brackets The US uses a progressive tax system with seven brackets: Rate Single Filer Married Joint 10% $0 – $11,925 $0 – $23,850 12% $11,926 – $48,475 $23,851 – $96,950 22% $48,476 – $103,350 $96,951 – $206,700 24% $103,351 – $197,300 $206,701 – $394,600 32% $197,301 – $250,525 $394,601 – $501,050 35% $250,526 – $626,350 $501,051 – $751,600 37% Over $626,350 Over $751,600 Standard deduction (2026): $16,100 (single) / $32,200 (married) Real Example: $120,000 Developer Salary Let's say you're a single developer earning $120,000 in 2026: Subtract standard deduction: $120,000 − $16,100 = $103,900 taxable Federal tax (progressive): 10% on first $11,925 = $1,192.50 12% on $11,926–$48,475 = $4,386.00 22% on $48,476–$103,350 = $12,096.28 24% on $103,351–$103,900 = $131.76 Total federal: $17,806.54 FICA (7.65%): $120,000 × 7.65% = $9,180.00 State tax varies: Texas/Florida/Washington: $0 California: ~$7,800 New York: ~$6,200 Illinois: $5,940 (4.95% flat) Take-home pay comparison: State Federal + FICA State Tax Take-Home Monthly Texas $26,987 $0 $93,013 $7,751 Florida $26,987 $0 $93,013 $7,751 California $26,987 $7,800 $85,213 $7,101 New York $26,987 $6,200 $86,813 $7,234 Illinois $26,987 $5,940 $87,073 $7,256 The difference between Texas and California? $7,800/year — that's a new MacBook Pro every year, just from choosing where to live. How to Calculate Your Exact Numbers I built a free paycheck calculator that covers all 50 US states with 2026 federal and state tax brackets. It includes: 401(k) and HSA pre-tax deductions All filing statuses (single, married, head of household) Bi-weekly, monthly, and weekly breakdowns Effective vs marginal rate display Tax-Saving Strategies for Developers 1. Max Your 401(k) The 2026 limit is $23,500 ($31,000 if 50+). At the 22% bracket, t

Originally published on bckinfo.com How to Install VMware ESXi: Step-by-Step Bare-Metal Setup Guide Table of Contents ESXi vs. VMware Workstation: Which One Do You Need Hardware Compatibility Check Downloading the ESXi Installer Creating a Bootable USB Installer BIOS/UEFI Preparation Installing ESXi: Step by Step Configuring the Management Network Accessing the vSphere Host Client Creating Your First Virtual Machine Post-Installation Checklist Common Issues and Quick Fixes Closing Notes If you've read our complete guide to VMware virtualization , you already know ESXi is the bare-metal hypervisor underneath vSphere. This guide is the hands-on counterpart — installing ESXi directly on physical server hardware, from hardware compatibility checks through booting your first virtual machine. ESXi vs. VMware Workstation: Which One Do You Need Before starting, it's worth confirming you actually want ESXi and not VMware Workstation. They solve different problems: VMware Workstation is a Type-2 hypervisor — it installs on top of an existing OS (Windows, Linux, macOS via Fusion). Good for running a VM or two on a laptop or desktop you also use for everything else. If that's your case, our guide on installing VMware Workstation on CentOS Stream 10 is the right starting point instead. ESXi is a Type-1, bare-metal hypervisor — it installs directly on the hardware with no host OS underneath it. This is the right choice for a dedicated server running multiple VMs, a home lab, or anything that needs to scale beyond "a VM running alongside my desktop." The rest of this guide assumes you're installing on dedicated hardware that won't run anything else. Hardware Compatibility Check This is the step most worth not skipping. ESXi has a defined Hardware Compatibility List (HCL), and installing on unlisted hardware is the single biggest source of installation failures and post-install driver issues. Check your exact server model and component list (NIC, storage controller) against VMware'

GitHub Actions shows you one run at a time. Green check, red X, green check, green check, red X. You scroll the list, you re-run the flaky one, you move on. Nobody's asking the question that actually matters: is this getting better or worse? "I calculated how much my CI failures actually cost. Curious what your pipeline success rate looks like — has anyone else tracked the actual wasted compute time over time?" That's a real question from someone who did the math by hand and found their failures were burning a real chunk of their compute budget. The replies were the same story you'd expect: heavyweight CI platforms have their own dashboards for this, but nobody had a lightweight, local way to just... track it. So I built citrend : pull your GitHub Actions run history into a local file, get a trend. npx citrend sync --repo owner/name npx citrend report --repo owner/name What it actually shows you $ citrend report --repo acme/widgets acme/widgets — 812 run(s) (2 in progress) success rate: 87.4% (699/800 settled, 12 skipped) wasted runs: 101 (12.6%) total compute: 118h 42m wasted compute: 14h 6m weekly trend (oldest → newest): 2026-06-05 91.2% success, 8 wasted (58m) 2026-06-12 88.0% success, 11 wasted (1h 22m) 2026-06-19 79.4% success, 22 wasted (3h 8m) 2026-06-26 84.1% success, 15 wasted (2h 1m) That weekly column is the entire point. A single gh run list will never show you that week 3 was a cliff — you'd have to notice it got annoying to work in, which is a much slower and much less precise signal than a number going from 91% to 79%. How it works sync pulls your workflow run history from the GitHub REST API and caches it locally (deduped by run id, so you can run it on a schedule without piling up duplicates). report reads that cache — no network call — and computes: Success rate , over settled runs only (still-running runs don't count either way until they conclude, and skipped runs are excluded from the denominator since they're not a pass/fail outcome). "Wasted"

You write the postmortem. You file the action items. Everyone nods, the doc gets archived, and life moves on. Six months later, the exact same root cause takes down the exact same service — and nobody in the room remembers the first incident, let alone that its fix never actually shipped. "We use rootly to track this automatically. It flags when incidents have the same root cause as previous ones." That's a real answer from an SRE thread about this exact problem — and it's a paid, hosted feature of a full incident-management platform. Most teams don't have rootly or incident.io. What they have is a folder of markdown postmortems that nobody diffs against each other. So I built rootecho : a zero-dependency CLI that does the one useful thing those platforms do for this — flag when a new incident's root cause echoes a past one, and show you whether that past incident's action items ever actually got finished. How it works Each postmortem is one JSON record — free-text root_cause and/or curated root_cause_tags , plus action_items with a status: { "id" : "INC-2026-014" , "title" : "Payment webhook retries exhausted" , "root_cause" : "webhook retry queue misconfigured to drop after 3 attempts, no dead-letter fallback" , "root_cause_tags" : [ "webhook" , "retry-queue" , "dead-letter" , "config" ], "action_items" : [ { "id" : "AI-1" , "description" : "Add dead-letter queue for webhook retries" , "owner" : "alice" , "status" : "open" } ] } rootecho add records it and compares against your history: $ rootecho add inc-2026-014.json ⚠ root cause echo detected for "INC-2026-014": INC-2026-003 (2026-03-15) — 100% similar root cause Payment webhook retries exhausted ✓ Add retry backoff [done] ✗ Add monitoring alert for queue depth [open] — 93d overdue → 1 action item(s) from this past incident were never finished. recorded to .rootecho/history.jsonl That's the whole point of the tool in one output: not just "you've seen this before," but "and here's the fix that never happened." r

Fable 5 got jailbroken again Researcher Vitto Rivabella tested Fable 5’s defenses and managed to find a bypass. According to him, most attempts failed. The protection is multi-layered: the model checks the prompt, conversation history, system context, and its own response. Some filters run during generation and can stop the answer halfway through. The checks are not based on keywords. The system looks at meaning, intent, language, wording, and suspicious chains of requests. The bypass took around 20 hours. It required rare languages, academic framing, long build-ups, Unicode, breaking the task into parts, and working with the chain of thought. The author did not get a stable bypass for long tasks. According to him, regular search is faster and cheaper.

The latest Puppet Enterprise releases are out and this one has a huge load of improvements, fixes, and security patches included! Puppet Enterprise (PE) 2025.11 released! The full PE 2025.11 release notes are always the best way to get a full detail on what has changed, but here are some highlights of PE 2025.11! Certificate Authority (CA): Database-backed Storage This new optional feature adds support for storing CA data in a PostgreSQL database instead of the file system. This improves performance and reliability and introduces API-driven capabilities and enhanced backup and recovery handling. PostgreSQL 17 Supported PE-managed installations will automatically upgrade from verson 14 to 17 as part of the upgrade process, or you can update yourself before upgrading to PE 2025.11 Infra Assistant Goes GPT-5 GPT-5 series models are now running under the hood of Infra Assistant, improving the quality of responses and the consistency for queries. Advanced Patching Enhancements The advanced patching feature now has improvements across a variety of areas New puppet_run_concurrency setting allows you to get better performance out of patch group enrollment Improved validation of scheduled and immediate jobs to reduce risk of unintended or skipped executions. Cron scheduling has better user experience and improved validation across features. New configurable option to enable Puppet to run after patch jobs to refresh pe_patch facts New Endpoints for Classifier and Activity Service APIs The Classifier API introduced new tags , add-tags and remove-tags endpoints to manage node group tags. The Activity service API now has subscriptions endpoints to create subscriptions, list subscriptions, or fetch/delete a specific subscription. Agent Platform Updates, Resolved Issues, and Security Fixes The macOS 26 platform is now supported for both ARM and x86_64, while support has been removed for Ubuntu 18.04 and Ubuntu 20.04. Nearly 60 CVEs were addressed in this release, along with many r