distribution-spec VS appleprivacyletter

Back in 2013, a little company called Docker made it really easy to start using containers to package up applications. A big key to their success was the OCI (you can learn about that here), an industry wide initiative to have standards around how we package up our applications. Because of OCI standards, we have hundreds (maybe thousands?) of tools that can be combined to manage and deploy applications. So why aren’t we using this for packaging up Notebooks and AI models as well? It would make deploying, sharing, and managing our models easier for everyone involved.

Kubernetes on the backend used to utilize docker for much of its container runtime solutions. One of the modular features of Kubernetes is the ability to utilize a Container Runtime Interface or CRI. The problem was that Docker didn't really meet the spec properly and they had to maintain a shim to translate properly. Instead users could utilize the popular containerd or cri-o runtimes. These follow the Open Container Initiative or OCI's guidelines on container formats.

OCI stands for Open Container Initiative, and its goal as an organization is to define a specification for container formats and runtime.

https://opencontainers.org/

Here is Containerfile from the repo: https://github.com/ublue-os/bazzite/blob/main/Containerfile

apko allows us to build OCI container images from .apk packages.

Flagger's load testing service can be installed via a Kustomization resource based on manifests packaged as an artifact in an Open Container Initiative (OCI) registry

CRI-O is a lightweight container runtime for Kubernetes. It is an implementation of Kubernetes CRI to use Open Container Initiative (OCI) compatible runtimes for running pods. It supports runc and Kata Containers as the container runtimes, but any OCI-compatible runtime can be integrated.

So somebody else created runj (runj is an experimental, proof-of-concept OCI-compatible runtime for FreeBSD jails.) https://github.com/samuelkarp/runj

Hi, the Global Encryption Coalition doesn't take stands as a Coalition but members often do... and 90 or so groups and experts wrote a letter earlier this year in opposition to that: https://appleprivacyletter.com/ (note that ISOC, where I work, did not join that letter)

Part of me wonders if the calculus includes either (a) the open letter signed by (effectively) ~10k verified developers [1], (b) the complaint letters from groups like the EFF [2, 3], or (c) expert and qualified input from their (presumably huge) marketing department...

[1] https://appleprivacyletter.com/

An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

(e.g. https://appleprivacyletter.com/)

In that light, FISA is relevant. My statement was to show that not all dealings of the US government are public, because not all courts and legal proceedings are available to the public. So "serious risk of leaks to journalists" won't likely happen in that case.

Thanks for this link. He mentions Apple Privacy Letter which is another petition for the same issue.

You can sign the petition against Apple here.

I suggest you read the open letter circulating to better understand the problems with Apple’s implementation.