I think Alpine has a release cycle of 6 months. So it should be a better option if you want software from 6 months ago packaged and available. Debian does something like 2 years(?) so naturally it might have very old versions of software. On the flipside you don't need to put in a lot of effort for 2 years.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "standard" when it comes to Linux software. I mean Podman is developed by Red Hat. And Red Hat also does Fedora. But we're not Apple here with a tight ecosystem. It's likely going to run on a plethora of other Linux distros as well. And it's not going to run better or worse just because of the company who made it....
Sure. I think we could construe an argument for both sides here. You're looking for something stable and rock solid, which doesn't break your stuff. I'd argue Debian does exactly that. It has long release cycles and doesn't give you any big Podman update, so you don't have to deal with a major release update. That's kind of what you wanted. But at the same time you want the opposite of that, too. That's just not something Debian can do.
It's going to get better, though. With software that had been moving fast (like Podman?) you're going to experience that. But the major changes are going to slow down while the project matures, and we'll get Debian Trixie soon (which is already in hard freeze as of now) and that comes with Podman 5.4.2. It'll be less of an issue in the future. At least with that package.
Question remains: Are you going to handle updates of your containers and base system better than, or worse than Debian... If you don't handle security updates of the containers in a timely manner for all time to come, you might be off worse. If you keep at it, you'll experience some benefits. Updates are now in your hands, with both downsides and benefits... You should be fine, though. Most projects do an alright job with their containers published on Docker Hub.
I don't think so. I've also started small. There are entire operating systems like YunoHost who forgo containers. All the packages in Debian are laid out to work like that. It's really not an issue by any means.
And I'd say it's questionable whether the benefits of containers apply to your situation. If you for example have a reverse proxy and do authentication there, all people need to do is break that single container and they'll be granted access to all other containers behind that as well... If you mess up your database connection, it doesn't really matter if it runs in a container or a user account / namespace. The "hacker" will gain access to all the data stored there in both cases. I really think a lot of the complexity and places to mess up are a level higher, and not something you'd tackle with your container approach. You still need the background knowledge. And containers help you with other things, less so with this.
I don't want to talk you out of using containers. They do isolate stuff. And they're easy to use. There isn't really a downside. I just think your claim doesn't hold up, because it's too general. You just can't say it that way.
But that's very hypothetical. I've been running servers for more than a decade now and never ever had an unbootable server. Because that's super unlikely. The services are contained in to several user accounts and they launch on top of the operating system. If they fail, that's not really any issue for the server booting. In fact the webserver or any service shouldn't even have permission to mess with the system. It'll just give you a red line in systemctl and not start the service. And the package managers are very robust. You might end up with some conflicts if you really mess up and do silly things. But with most if them the system will still boot.
So containers are useful and have their benefits. But I think this is a non-issue.
That's also my experience. There isn't really any noticeable performance hit, even on modern SSDs. It should be the same amount of data coming from the SSD anyway, since the SSD isn't even the part doing the cryptography (with LUKS), so it shouldn't have any effect. And the CPU handles the decryption just fine
Well, in fact it can. That's "overprovisioning". The SSD has some amount of reserved space as replacement for bad cells, and maybe to speed things up. So if you overwrite 100% of what you've access to on the SSD, you'd still have X amount of data you didn't catch. But loosely speaking you're right. If you overwrite the entire SSD and not just files or one partition or something like that, you'd force it to replace most of the content.
I wouldn't recommend it, though. There is secure erase, blkdiscard and some nvme format commands which do it the right way. And 'dd' is just a method that get's it about right (though not 100%) in one specific case.
SSDs don't store the data like HDDs, where you'd overwrite the same part on a magnetic platter. The controller on a SSD will instead handle it, do some magic and decide what to do. So if you use dd to replace some part with zeros, it might instead invalidate the old data, allocate new memory to you and not really overwrite anything. That's why SSDs have separate commands for wiping content.
Well, I heard in some countries all textbooks are a grift, and cost like $120 each and you have to buy like 5 of them... Not so much in other countries... I had hoped to get a bit more background information from an article... I really have no clue about the education system in Korea.
Hmmh, I feel the paragraph with what they saw at some booth at a fair might not be connected to the textbooks, though. Or it's just a different way of phrasing it, I'm not sure. I just hope AI does a good job for the Korean students. I remember we once had a math textbook which was the first run/edition and it still contained a handful of errors. And those were super annoying as a student. I feel that could happen more often with AI.
And what exactly are AI textbooks? Does AI generate a quiz? Or generate the facts? I feel there is quite some bandwidth there and the article doesn't say a lot.
Alright, seems fine. Just make sure you include some privacy statement if you process the user's IP addresses and location. And maybe give a very rough location only.
Sure, I think that'll do. I mean I love to tell people on the internet that they're idiots... But a simple "Skip" would do, if OP fears this is going to drag down the place. On the other hand... Forcing people to pick an option has its benefits, too. But there's a limit with user generated questions. (And I'm not even sure if the ones I saw were user-generated. They were mostly productive, proper questions and without spelling errors...)
Very nice. Jury duty is fun. But I feel we need a third option for questions like: "I am a manager of company with 200 employees. We want to introduce a rewards system for perfect attendance (zero sick days or absences). Two days extra holiday or a financial reward."
Both answers suck, and the correct answer is: you're the a*hole for incentivising your employees to come in sick, and either infect other people as well, or not take time to recover and get worse.
And please broaden this beyond AI. The attention economy that comes with social media, and other forms of "tech-feudalism", manipulation, targeting and tracking/surveillance aren't healthy either, even if they don't rely on AI and machine learning.
I'd say you're probably right with the appointed internet sheriff. Quite some people here strive for a nice atmosphere, and Lemmy to be a particularly good realization of social media. That directly translates to the rules we make up for specific corners of it. And since social media is all about attention, this is the "handle". I think it's Privacyguide's obligation. They can choose which place they call home and whom they bond with.
I think Alpine has a release cycle of 6 months. So it should be a better option if you want software from 6 months ago packaged and available. Debian does something like 2 years(?) so naturally it might have very old versions of software. On the flipside you don't need to put in a lot of effort for 2 years.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "standard" when it comes to Linux software. I mean Podman is developed by Red Hat. And Red Hat also does Fedora. But we're not Apple here with a tight ecosystem. It's likely going to run on a plethora of other Linux distros as well. And it's not going to run better or worse just because of the company who made it....