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++.

I switched to fennec and it’s basically instant. Fennec also gets ublock origin, a much better adblocker. But I’ve been too lazy to switch before this.

Anubis takes around 5 minutes on cromite browser.

It doesn’t work at all for users without javascript. The creator of anubis is investigating an alternative

It’s a lot more complex than “enable everywhere immediately”.

Try translated Chinese web serials.

Try 40 milenniums of cultivation. It’s half fantasy though, with it’s own magic system. Actually, most web serials I read are fantasy, I haven’t seen much sci fi.

There are also actual novels though, like the 3 body problem, which was popular enough to get adapted to a netflix series but I only really care about web serials.

I thought you were going to link to this.

Joysticks on the bottom again… whyyyyy…

My hands find that setup so uncomfortable, I wish they would put them on the top.

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 called openvswitch.

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.

Here’s an older article by the FSF:

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

The short version is that Apple applies further restrictions what you can do with apps from the App Store, that conflict with the GPL’s explicit requirement that software distributed is freely usable.

Apple is not unique in this, as other locked down app stores, like console app stores have similar issues.

It should also be noted that Apple themselves refuses to use GPL code in MacOS. They used to be using a very outdated bash version (since newer versions were GPL licensed), but it seems they’ve switched to zsh instead.

Google is similar, in that they have an internal policy to never touch AGPL code — You’re not even supposed to install AGPL apps.

None. The Apple App store straight up disallows AGPL and GPL licensed code on it.

Sometimes people mistake platforms banning or refusing to use A/GPL licensed code as restrictions of the license itself, and that’s what they refer to by “The A/GPL is ‘restrictive’” — because A/GPL licensed code can’t be used on every platform.

It’s worked fine for me with no configuration. If you ask for help, we can troubleshoot and get it working.

I despise the way Canonical pretends discourse forum posts by their team members* are documentation.

I’ve noticed they have been a bit better lately, and have migrated much of the posts to their documentation, but it seems they are doing it again.

As this is developed, we will update this post to link to the new documentation and feature release notes.

Pro tip: You could have just made the documentation directly, with the content of this post. Or maybe a blog post. But please stop with the forum posts. They are very confusing for people not used to these… unique locations.

*Not that people are easily able to find this out when they don’t give any indication that the forum post is something other than just another post by a rando. Actually, I’m just guessing here, based on the quoted reply, for all I know this could be a post by someone unrelated to Canonical. The account is 3 months, and the post itself is identical to a regular forum post from a regular forum member…

It actually is a language issue.

Although rust can dynamically link with C/C++ libraries, it cannot dynamically link with other Rust libraries. Instead, they are statically compiled into the binary itself.

But the GPL interacts differently with static linking than with dynamic. If you make a static binary with a GPL library or GPL code, your program must be GPL. If you dynamically link a GPL library, you’re program doesn’t have to be GPL. It’s partially because of this, that the vast majority of Rust programs and libraries are permissively licensed — to make a GPL licensed rust library would mean it would see much less use than a GPL licensed C library, because corporations wouldn’t be able to extend proprietary code off of it — not that I care about that, but the library makers often do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Libraries — it’s complicated.

EDIT: Nvm I’m wrong. Rust does allow dynamic linking

Hmmmm. But it seems that people really like to compile static rust binaries, however, due to their portability across Linux distros.

EDIT2: Upon further research it seems that Rust’s dynamic linking implementation lacks a “stable ABI” as compared to other languages such as Swift or C. So I guess we are back to “it is a language issue”. Well thankfully this seems easier to fix than “Yeah Rust doesn’t support dynamic linking at all.”

Edit3: Nvm, I’m very, very wrong. The GPL does require programs using GPL libraries, even dynamically linked, be GPL. It’s the LGPL that doesn’t.

Openstack cluster!

[moonpie@osiris ~]$ du -h $(which filelight)
316K    /usr/bin/filelight

K = kilobytes.

[moonpie@osiris ~]$ pacman -Ql filelight | awk '{print $2}' | xargs du | awk '{print $1}' | paste -sd+ | bc
45347740

45347740 bytes is 43.247 megabytes. That is to say, the entire install of filelight is only 43 megabytes.

KDE packages have many dependencies, which cause the packages themselves to be extremely tiny. By sharing a ton of code via libraries, they save a lot of space.

The FSF doesn’t seem to have teeth when it comes to things like this, instead it’s the SFC who intervenes.

In January, the Software Freedom Conservancy, an open source advocacy group that intervened to help Suhy several years ago, submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit