Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)MA
Posts
59
Comments
681
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Yes I did, and that's a very good point. What sudo does not allow me to do is grant a user access to modify or read specific files or directories. I can get both that and access to executing specific programs using a users/groups permission system.

    Another thing I don't like about sudo is that you end up using the same password for everything, which is also the password for logging in. Putting higher privileges behind my same login password opens me to a single point of failure.

  • The short answer is that my distro did not let me do this easily. But that was for good reason.

    A system update would require too many privileges that it would be almost indistinguishable from root.

    Currently, every user I have is restricted in what files it has access to. A system update user would need access to so many files, including install locations of all binaries, and non-binary installation paths of all current and future programs I install (some package installs modify /var, many modify /etc, and so on).

    This user will also have access to all these programs, down to system applications. It can trivially break a permission system I come up with.

    It may be possible to restrict system updates to a user, but it would be such a powerful user that its not really worth it.

  • Podman only if you really care about using FOSS, having first-class rootless mode, and don't mind the hassle of scarce learning resource and tutorials on all Podman features that are different from docker.

    Otherwise docker.

  • When I thought about this question, I decided to ditch both sudo and doas entirely. I am certain this is an unpopular opinion, but I preferred setting up a granular permission + user system instead, and keeping root privileges for only a handful of use cases (primarily for system updates and package installations).

    For anything else, a dedicated user is created, and given only permissions to do that exact thing only. Many of these users have no shell access at all, and for the ones that do, I use a password manager so I don't have to memorize passwords for all of these users.

  • Well interpretability of a non standard license is problematic, but that's true for any kind of new license. By that argument we should oppose any kind of change, positive or not.

    Imo this change is positive. We should actively be against corporate leeching.

  • You only have to give back if yours literally redistributing a modified version of the thing.

    If you use the software without modifying it directly (such as building on top of it, or building something that uses it), then that's allowed.

    Also if you make use of the software commercially, without necessarily distributing it, then that's also allowed. For example, Google could (I think they actually already do) modify the Linux kernel, and use it all across their company internally. They don't have to give back, since they don't distribute it.

    And last, if you don't modify the software but charge people using it, that's completely allowed.

  • Then I suppose I am looking for a download resources that aren't repacks, or at least aren't so heavy and convoluted on the way they pack.

    What I liked about fitgirl is the reputation. A resource I can trust and quality is consistent.

  • Is there an alternative to fitgirl that doesn't have the long uncompress / unpack times? I love that fitgirl has everything and is a trusted source, but the decompression takes too long and sometimes doesn't even work on Linux.

  • Fedora and debian support the corporate definitions of FOSS, so their opinions do not matter here.

    it applies to everybody

    I don't think most of us want to offer services by hosting a service without contributing back the code. If they do, I am happy that it is a requirement that they give back. Only for-profit companies will have an issue with this.

  • RSAL seems weird and I need to research it more. But I don't mind SSPL at all. It only hurts companies who hope to use open source without wanting to give back. From my perspective that's good.

  • For what it's worth, I have only minor issues on wayland with nvidia, and all were fixable by changing some configuration option or something.

    Maybe my demands aren't too heavy, but I do play games. I also use gentoo which makes fixing things easier.