This is common in the IT world. Printers are such painful devices and installing drivers on every Windows desktop just adds to the pain, but by doing this you don't need to install drivers, as Linux can serve something that doesn't need drivers to print to.
- Posts
- 21
- Comments
- 418
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 21
- Comments
- 418
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Vertical tabs? PWAs don’t even have tabs. Why are you bringing this up?
They are examples of extremely wanted features that the firefox community has been asked for a while, but have only been added now.
he browser extension you mentioned is from a 3rd party (and I have tried in the past and gave up because it just didn’t work, which was a far cry from the easy to use PWA support Firefox once had).
Worked on my machine ¯(ツ)_/¯
I disagree with the idea that Google's money comes with strings attached that influence the development of Mozilla Firefox. Google props Firefox up in order to avoid being hit by anti trust laws. Trying to explicitly or implicitly use that money for to intentionally Firefox bad, would be extremely risky, as if the slightest bit of evidence was out, they would immediately be hit with an antitrust suit, and it would defeat the purpose of the money.
Well, they are being hit with one right now, but it's not about the Google-Mozilla relations, but instead Google's dominance as a default search engine.
The loss of PWA Site-Specific Browsers is an interesting coincidence — but that's all it is, a coincidence. The fact that they are being readded as an official feature, but only after Firefox got a UI rewrite is evidence that there are other internal and unrelated factors at play.
Google maintains their dominance by adding to web standards very quickly, making it difficult for other browser engines to keep up, and "accidentally" breaking youtube on other browsers, in addition to other shenanigans. No browser engine will have the resources to keep up with that, and they don't have to keep firefox intentionally bad by denying power users features when the vast majority of users will find something that youtube doesn't work on unusable.
only to be shutdown by corporate before it gets much steam.
So I guess you just completely ignored the part where I mentioned how they are readding support for site-specific-browsers (the ability to install a PWA as an app) and also officially adding vertical tabs? If that's your definition of "shutdown", then I don't know what to tell you.
But I'm sure the fact that features that explicitly affect the UI being added only after a rewrite/refactor of firefox's UI is completely coincidental.
EDIT: To me, it's clear that they didn't want to add these features officially since all the work would get wasted and overwritten if the UI rewrite happened. But there was always unofficial support, like this browser extension, and for PWA's with service workers, they would work offline as well (which was built into the browser itself).
That's not quite true with the pwa thing. Many of the features of pwa support, particularly the interesting ability to have them work offline, were and are still supported in firefox.
What doesn't work is the ability to view websites as their own "app". This feature was most likely dropped because Firefox had to basically rewrite their UI engine, but now that it's done, we are seeing things like native sidebar (instead of topbar) tabs, and web apps (2025 article) get added again/officially.
Yeah I just did a quick test with photopea.com and it worked offline in firefox.
It's very possible that the digital Euro will be a GNU taler system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Taler
n 2020 the project received a grant from NLnet and the European Commission's Horizon 2020 Next
The European Commission is the Executive Arm of the EU.
The original version of synapse is written in python, which still has issues with single threadedness and the global interpreter lock.
Damn. Yast had some really unique features like the ability to configure grub, which cockpit doesn't have.
Licenses like SSPLv1
The SSPL requires that all software used to deploy SSPL software is open sourced. If I deploy my software on Windows, do I have to provide the source code for Windows? What about the proprietary hardware drivers, or Intel Management Engine?
The SSPL is not the next generation of licenses, it is effectively unusable. And both Redis and Mongo, dual licensed their software as the SSPL, and a proprietary license — effectively making their entire software proprietary.
make money without risk of a cloud vendor snapping up their software (think Redis, MongoDB, etc) need a place at the table.
Except Redis, and Mongo were making money. They had well valued, well earning SAAS offerings — it's just that the offerings integrated into existing cloud vendors would be more popular (because vendor lock in). They just wanted more money, and were hoping that by going proprietary, they could force customers away from the cloud offers to themselves, and massively increase their revenue.. They did not get that.
Another thing is that it's not "stealing" Mongo/Redis' when cloud vendors offer SAAS's of Mongo/Redis. Mongo/Redis, and their SAAS offerings, are only possible because the same cloud vendors put more money than Mongo/Redis make yearly into Linux and other software that powers the SAAS offerings of Mongo/Redis, like Kubernetes. Without that software, Mongo/Redis wouldn't have a SAAS offering at all.
I definitely think that it's bad when a piece of software doesn't get any funding it needs to develop, especially when it powers much more modern software, like XZ. But Mongo/Redis weren't suffering from a lack of funding at all. They're just mad they had to share their toys, and tried to take them away. But it didn't even matter in the end.
I switched to Incus for my homelab.
Blogpost: https://moonpiedumplings.github.io/projects/build-server-6/
I use a wacom intuos + xournal++.
The wacom is nice because it has bluetooth and pretty much "just works" on Linux.
Xournal++ lets me edit pdf files and/or export stuff as pdf. I also like that I can add text with xournal++.
Because you can run a "rootfull xwayland" session which is essentially an X11 session but rewritten to be more maintanable.
After this, it's a lot harder to be opposed to the loss of X11, because you don't really lose it.
I don't think so, now. You'll have to do those yourself.
Which means my distro-morphing idea should work in theory with OpenStack
I also don't recommend doing a manual install though, as it's extremely complex compared to automated deployment solutions like kolla-ansible (openstack in docker containers), openstack-ansible (host os/lxc containers), or openstack-helm/genestack/atmosphere (openstack on kubernetes). They make the install much more simpler and less time consuming, while still being intensely configurable.
Personally, I think Proxmox is somewhat unsecure too.
Proxmox is unique from other projects, in it's much more hacky, and much of the stack is custom rather than standards. Like for example: For networking, they maintain a fork of the Linux's older networking stack, called
ifupdown2, whereas similar projects, like openstack, or Incus, use either the standard Linux kernel networking, or a project calledopenvswitch.I think Proxmox is definitely secure enough, but I don't know if I would really trust it for higher value usecases due to some of their stack being custom, rather than standard and mantained by the wider community.
If I end up wanting to run Proxmox, I’ll install Debian, distro-morph it to Kicksecure
If you're interested in deploying a hypervisor on top of an existing operating system, I recommend looking into Incus or Openstack. They have packages/deployments than can be done on Debian or Red Hat distros, and I would argue that they are designed in a more secure manner (since they include multi tenancy) than Proxmox. In addition to that, they also use standard tooling for networking, like both can use Linux Bridge (in-kernel networking) for networking operations.
I would trust Openstack the most when it comes to security, because it is designed to be used as a public cloud, like having your own AWS, and it is deployed with components publicly accessible in the real world.
Again, this is distracting from the original argument to make some kind of tertiary argument unrelated to the original one: Is ssh secure to expose to the internet?
You said no. That is the argument being contested.
This is moving the goal posts. You went from "ssh is not fine to expose" to "VPN's add security". While the second is true, it's not what was being argued.
Never expose your SSH port on the public web,
Linux was designed as a multi user system. My college, Cal State Northridge, has an ssh server you can connect to, and put your site up. Many colleges continue to have a similar setup, and by putting stuff in your homedir you can have a website at no cost.
There are plenty of usecases which involve exposing ssh to the public internet.
And when it comes to raw vulnerabilities, ssh has had vastly less than stuff like apache httpd, which powers wordpress sites everywhere but has had so many path traversal and RCE vulns over the years.
Firstly, Xen is considered by secure by Qubes — but that's mainly the security of the hypervisor and virtualization system itself. They make a very compelling argument that escaping a Xen based virtual machine is going to be more difficult than a KVM virtual machine.
But threat model matters a lot. Qubes aims to be the most secure OS ever, for use cases like high profile journalists or other people who absolutely need security, because they will literally get killed without it.
Amazon moved to KVM because, despite the security trade off's, it's "good enough" for their usecase, and KVM is easier to manage because it's in the Linux kernel itself, meaning you get it if you install Linux on a machine.
In addition to that, security is about more than just the hypervisor. You noted that Promox is Debian, and XCP-NG is Centos or a RHEL rebuild similar to Rocky/Alma, I think. I'll get to this later.
Xen (and by extension XCP-NG) was better known for security whilst KVM (and thus Proxmox)
I did some research on this, and was planning to make a blogpost and never got around to making it. But I still have the draft saved.
The short version is: it depends, and they can fluctuate slightly on certain tasks, but they are mostly the same in performance.
default PROXMOX and XCP-NG installations.
What do you mean by hardening? If you are talking about hardening the management operating system (Proxmox's Debian or XCP's RHEL-like), or the hypervisor itself?
I agree with the other poster about CIS hardening and generally hardening the base operating system used. But I will note that XCP-NG is more designed to be an "appliance" and you're not really supposed to touch it. I wouldn't be suprised if it's immutable nowadays.
For the hypervisor itself, it depends on how secure you want things, but I've heard that at Microsoft Azure datacenters, they disable hyperthreading because it becomes a security risk. In fact, Spectre/Meltdown can be mitigated by disabling hyper threading. Of course, their are other ways to mitigate those two vulnerabilities, but by disabling hyper threading, you can eliminate that entire class of vulnerabilities — at the cost of performance.
https://lnav.org/
https://moonpiedumplings.github.io/playground/ccdc-logs/
I played around with some non-elasticsearch web/gui based solutions as well.