Fun fact: you don’t need to add the nixpkgs channel for the determinate systems installer, even when using channel commands or other things since it adds an option to your nix.conf to reference the nix flake for nixpkgs.
I don’t know how to update this flake though.
Zotero is a citation manager, with a firefox extension to save an article (but really, a tab) with one click.
It also has fulltext search. You can search snapshots of everything you save.
“But I can’t save all my tabs at once”
(There are some solutions, but nothIng official)
Save as you go. Computers simply don’t have enough ram for 2000 tabs.
Anyway, it also seems to be able to run javascript plugins, and I saw you have some experience with that.
It also has support for folders, so you can organize it a bit better than tabs work for that.
There’s also the needy users that create tickets for every prompt, dialog, message, delay… Pretty much anything that could happen at all ever, whether it affects their ability to do their work or not.‘’
This could be weaponized incompetence. “Oh I keep having issues with my computer that interfere with my work, so I can’t work and IT is incompetent and can’t help me, look at all these tickets and how long IT takes. I just can’t get any work done!”
Yeah, I read that manual but it didn’t answer my question.
The big problem is that the arch wiki describes a setup with nested subvolumes first (in a subvolume below @ or whatever your root subvolume is), but then suggests in a tip to use a subvolume directly below the top level subvolume. The limitations mentioned in that manual don’t seem to apply to either setup, as they would prevent swap from working, which is not the case. I have tested both setups and they work fine — or so it seems. I’m worried there is some hidden gotcha I’m missing.
in addition to that, some of those limitations simply don’t apply to my setup, as I only have a single device.
Putting something on GitHub is really inconsequential if you’re making your project open source since anyone can use it for anything anyway,
Except for people in China (blocked in China) or people on ipv6 only networks, since Github hasn’t bothered to support ipv6, cutting out those in countries where ipv4 addresses are scarce.
So yes, it does matter. Both gitlab and codeberg, the two big alternatives, both support ipv6 (idk about them being blocked in china). They also support github logins, so you dob’t even need to make an account.
And it’s not a black or white. Software freedom is a spectrum, not a binary. We should strive to use more open source, decentralized software, while recognizing that many parts are going to be out of our immediate control, like the backbone of the internet or little pieces like proprietary firmware.
When syncthing is configured to go both ways (the default), it also syncs any deletions. You can somewhat get around this by something like one way sync, but it’s not really a proper “backup” software.
Personally, I like to treat data synced by syncthing, even between multiple machines, as one copy of the data when I am following the 3-2-1 backup rule*, because syncthing won’t save me from a buggy program deleting all my files or user error, or anything like that.
*See wikipedia for info about the 3-2-1 backup rule.
Dockers manipulation of nftables is pretty well defined in their documentation
Documentation people don’t read. People expect, that, like most other services, docker binds to ports/addresses behind the firewall. Literally no other container runtime/engine does this, including, notably, podman.
As to the usage of the docker socket that is widely advised against unless you really know what you’re doing.
Too bad people don’t read that advice. They just deploy the webtop docker compose, without understanding what any of it is. I like (hate?) linuxserver’s webtop, because it’s an example of the two of the worst footguns in docker in one
To include the rest of my comment that I linked to:
Do any of those poor saps on zoomeye expect that I can pwn them by literally opening a webpage?
No. They expect their firewall to protect them by not allowing remote traffic to those ports. You can argue semantics all you want, but not informing people of this gives them another footgun to shoot themselves with. Hence, docker “bypasses” the firewall.
On the other hand, podman respects your firewall rules. Yes, you have to edit the rules yourself. But that’s better than a footgun. The literal point of a firewall is to ensure that any services you accidentally have running aren’t exposed to the internet, and docker throws that out the window.
You originally stated:
I think from the dev’s point of view (not that it is right or wrong), this is intended behavior simply because if docker didn’t do this, they would get 1,000 issues opened per day of people saying containers don’t work when they forgot to add a firewall rules for a new container.
And I’m trying to say that even if that was true, it would still be better than a footgun where people expose stuff that’s not supposed to be exposed.
But that isn’t the case for podman. A quick look through the github issues for podman, and I don’t see it inundated with newbies asking “how to expose services?” because they assume the firewall port needs to be opened, probably. Instead, there are bug reports in the opposite direction, like this one, where services are being exposed despite the firewall being up.
(I don’t have anything against you, I just really hate the way docker does things.)
Yes it is a security risk, but if you don’t have all ports forwarded, someone would still have to breach your internal network IIRC, so you would have many many more problems than docker.
I think from the dev’s point of view (not that it is right or wrong), this is intended behavior simply because if docker didn’t do this, they would get 1,000 issues opened per day of people saying containers don’t work when they forgot to add a firewall rules for a new container.
My problem with this, is that when running a public facing server, this ends up with people exposing containers that really, really shouldn’t be exposed.
Excerpt from another comment of mine:
It’s only docker where you have to deal with something like this:
---
services:
webtop:
image: lscr.io/linuxserver/webtop:latest
container_name: webtop
security_opt:
- seccomp:unconfined #optional
environment:
- PUID=1000
- PGID=1000
- TZ=Etc/UTC
- SUBFOLDER=/ #optional
- TITLE=Webtop #optional
volumes:
- /path/to/data:/config
- /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock #optional
ports:
- 3000:3000
- 3001:3001
restart: unless-stopped
Originally from here, edited for brevity.
Resulting in exposed services. Feel free to look at shodan or zoomeye, internet connected search engines, for exposed versions of this service. This service is highly dangerous to expose, as it gives people an in to your system via the docker socket.
So I have an answer for this. Basically all of the entities listed that relicensed their projects to the SSPL, also relicensed their projects using the dual licensing scheme, including one proprietary license. That’s important later.
The SSPL’s intent is probably that the deployment framework used to open source this software must be open sourced. I like this intent, and I would consider it Free/Libre Software, but it should be noted that another license, the open watcom license, which requires you to open source software if you simply deploy it, is not considered Free Software by the FSF. I don’t really understand this decision. I don’t count “must share source code used” as a restriction on usage cases. It seems that the FSF only cares about user freedom, whoever is using the software, and views being forced to open source code only used privately as a restriction.
Now, IANAL… but the SSPL’s lettering is problematic. What is part of the deployment system? If I deploy software on Windows, am I forced to open source windows? If I deploy it on a server with intel management engine, am I forced to open source that? Due to the way it is worded, the SSPL is unusable.
And a dual license, one proprietary and one unusable means only one license — proprietary. There’s actually a possibility that this is intentional, and that the intent of the SSPL was never to be usable, but rather so that these companies could pretend they are still Open Source while going fully proprietary.
But, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume the SSPL’s intent was benevolent but misguided, and that it’s intent was not to be unusable, but rather to force companies to open source deployment platforms.
Of course, the OSI went and wrote an article about how the SSPL is not an open source license but that’s all BS. All you need to do is take a look at who sponsors the OSI (Amazon, Google, other big SAAS providers) to realize that the OSI is just protecting their corporate interests, who are terrified of an SSPL license that actually works, so they seek to misrepresent the intent of the SSPL license as too restrictive for Open Source — which is false. Being forced to open source your deployment platform still allows you to use the code in any way you desire — you just have to open source your deployment platform.
AGPL. There’s also Open Watcom, but it’s not considered a Free Software license by the FSF, meaning software written under that wouldn’t be included in any major Linux distros.
I think in theory you could make an SSPL that works. But SSPL ain’t it.
Of course, there are problems with designing an SSPL that works, of course. Like, if you make it so that you don’t have to open source proprietary code by other vendors, then what if companies split themselves up and one company makes and “sells” the proprietary programs to another.