As far as I know Zorin is FOSS, for what it’s worth. It’s mostly just bundled FOSS software with some slick themes and accessibility features, plus a few in-house system apps which they do seem to provide sources for.
They mention that it’s open source on their website but they don’t mention FOSS probably because the libre/gratis distinction is confusing for people.
Even from a viewer perspective, this sounds depressing to watch. I don’t really get what people get out of this.
Editing the systemd services seems a neat solution here. Rather than editing the package-provided service files directly, you can create overrides using systemctl edit.
Another more hacky option would be to use the PostUp directive but account for the case there’s no tailscale0 device yet. Write a simple shell script or something.
It’s the confusing mess of subscriptions and seemingly locking basic functionality behind a paywall that’s skeevy, not paying for software itself. I have happily paid for software before and would again. Plex has never appealed to me though, and they’re certainly doing nothing to make themselves more appealing.
Do you have a source for this claim that the new pricing scheme only applies to the Plex Relays? As far as I can tell it applies to anything they consider “remote access”, regardless of whether it goes through their servers or not.
It seems deeply opposed to the spirit of selfhosting to have to pay for the privilege of accessing one’s own server. If the software itself cost money, that would be one thing, but this whole monetization scheme is skeevy.
It seems like multiple things are being conflated here and I’m not sure what the reality is because I’ve never used Plex.
Some people claim this has something to do with Plex needing to pay for NAT traversal infrastructure. Okay, that seems sort of silly but at least there’s the excuse that their servers are involved in the streaming somehow.
But their wording is very broad, just calling it “remote streaming.” That led me to this article on the Plex support website, which walks people through setting up port forwarding in order to enable “remote streaming”! So that excuse doesn’t really seem to hold water. What exactly is being paid for here then? How do they define what “local streaming” is?
If you think this is annoying to play, try simulating 4D chess by lining up four of these 3D chess sets
LLMs are very good at giving what seems like the right answer for the context. Whatever “rationality” jailbreak you did on it is going to bias its answers just as much as any other prompt. If you put in a prompt that talks about the importance of rationality and not being personal, it’s only natural that it would then respond that a personal tone is harmful to the user—you basically told it to believe that.
mom-and-pop style datacenters
I find this wording very funny for some reason. I do wonder what a more-decentralized internet would look like though, rather than 90% of it being in the hands of a few megacorps.
The cursed LLM thing uses buttplug.io on the backend, I just wanted to share it because the premise is very funny to me.
Tailscale is just a bunch of extra fancy stuff on top of Wireguard. If you don’t need the fancy stuff, using raw Wireguard can be more lightweight, but might require more networking knowledge.
The biggest thing Tailscale brings you the table is NAT traversal. On top of that it uses direct Wireguard tunnels as necessary instead of creating a mesh like you usually would if you were using raw Wireguard. It also offers convenient bits of sugar like internal DNS, and it handles key exchanges for you so it’s just generally easier to configure. When you do raw Wireguard you’re doing all the config yourself, which could be a pro or a con depending on your needs—and you’ll be editing config files, unlike Tailscale which has a GUI for most things. It also supports some more detailed security options like ACLs and I think SSO, while Wireguard is reliant on your existing firewall for that.
Here’s what Tailscale has to say about it: https://tailscale.com/compare/wireguard
I’ve messed around with Tailscale myself, but ultimately settled on running Wireguard. The reason I do that though is because I trust my LAN, and I only run Wireguard at the edge. Tailscale really wants to be run on every node, which in turn is something that raw Wireguard theoretically can do but would be onerous to maintain. If I didn’t trust my LAN, I’d probably switch to Tailscale.
A lot of people have suggested Tailscale and it’s basically the perfect solution to all your requirements.
You keep saying you need ProtonVPN which means you can’t use Tailscale, but Tailscale actually supports setting up an exit node which is what you need. Put Protonvpn on the Raspberry Pi, then set it up as an exit node for your tailnet. There’s a lot of people talking about how they did this online. It looks like they even have native support for bypassing the manual setup if you use Mullvad.
As long as every client has the ability to use Tailscale (I.e. no weird TVs or anything) this seems like it checks all your boxes. And since everything is E2EE from Tailscale, TLS is redundant and you can just use HTTP.
I’m not a lawyer so this is just my layperson’s read, but looking at the actual law it seems like in order for it to actually count as “deceptive” it needs to be presented as real. If there’s a disclaimer saying it’s fake, it wouldn’t be illegal under this law, so it seems like satire isn’t the main target.
One use for wireguard in a container is that if you’re using other containers on the same host you can use container magic to route the traffic of specific containers through the wireguard tunnel, while other containers bypass the tunnel.
I kinda of lean towards the idea of “private accounts” being a bad idea as a result, just because it creates a false sense of security. But I’m not in the target demographic so idk
The issue is that if you don’t default to federation, it becomes essentially impossible for new instances to join the fediverse. A potential new instance would have to go around to every single existing instance and ask to be allowlisted, which is onerous for both the new instances and for the large server admins who would be getting tons of requests. It would also essentially kill small-scale selfhosting as a result.
When done correctly, the banner is actually a consent banner. It’s a legal thing, not necessarily trying to discourage criminals. It’s informing users that all use will be monitored and it implies their consent to the technology policies of the organization. It’s more for regular users than criminals.
When it’s just “unauthorized access is prohibited”, though, especially on a single-user server? Not really any point. But since this article was based on compliance guidelines that aren’t all relevant to the homelab, I can see how it got warped into the empty “you no hack” banner.
Being able to sell FOSS is one of the freedoms “free software” refers to.
Honestly though I think the thing that struck me the most and I found kind of scummy was their “value statement” where they were advertising the OS by comparing it to the prices of the proprietary software is includes alternatives to. You misreading the website wasn’t an accident, they designed it in a deceptive way IMO.
If they were more honest about it, I wouldn’t have any problem with them charging for the convenience of having everything pre-bundled. Of course you could set everything up yourself, but Linux is notoriously finnicky. People want a complete experience, they want support. They want the slick branding.