meteokr @ meteokr @community.adiquaints.moe

Posts

4

Comments

217

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well Linux doesn't have a registry, so an editor would also not exist, to be fair.

Not literally copy, as in have an extra set of keys. A spare key. A bank vault is total overkill. I just bought 2 fido2 keys and register both for the services that support them. Have one on your keychain and another in your desk. 2FA is often way over thought, any adversary needs both factors so something you know and something you own is plenty for most people.

A hardware device is a physical key. Its no different than backing up your home key. Get two keys and copy them. Keep one on you, and the other in a safe somewhere in case you lose the first.

struggling with Nvidia drivers

Depends on your hardware age, and whether or not you use proprietary drivers. Some distros handle it auto-magically for you so you don't really need to do anything and it just works.

ultra fast GPU access to storage

For the time being, nothing on PC actually requires this, or uses it optionally for any perceived I provment in fidelity. Its super cool tech though, looking forward to this in the future.

HDR

Fair point, it is actively being worked on by a lot of big organizations and developers, so it will get better. Last I checked Window's support of it isn't incredible, but its better than the nothing Linux has at the moment.

I just want better support from developers. I'm fine with AMD being slower, but a ton of projects just don't even run with AMD hardware. I wish there was a psuedo-vulkan style interface for AI, so that GPU makers and developers could target that in the same way game developers target vulkan/opengl.

What a shame.

I don't think you understand my position. I've no argument about piracy or not.

I’m more concerned about creators and other sites that use ads for revenue such as newspapers

If they don't want me to view their content, then don't allow me to. Netflix has no problem keeping me off their service, because I don't pay the fee. Several other sites block me from viewing their site if I block their ads. That's fine, I leave knowing they don't want me consuming their content. 100% A okay by me. I pay for services I like, and creators I like.

So if you want to “pay” a site without money, don’t pirate their content.

My argument is that watching an ad, is not a form of payment. If it not a payment, it can't be piracy. To take your movie analogy. Let's say a park has a movie screen setup so that anyone can watch the movie, and before the movies starts, someone comes in front and tells everyone about the company sponsoring this public viewing. In the context of youtube, it is not a ticketed event. If I, in the audience, am typing on my phone with my headphones on so that I don't see/hear their sponsor, did I pirate the movie? What if I purposely show up a few minutes late, knowing in advance they would have the sponsor at the start? Is that piracy? I would claim no, but as I understand you, you would say yes.

If YouTube blocks a video from playing because I blocked the ad, then I don't watch the video. If it doesnt, then I can watch the video. My argument is specifically, that what is being sold is not the content. Content creators are creating audiences, with which to capture and sell to advertisers. Advertisers have spent uncountable amounts of money, and decades on propaganda to convince you of your current position, as I understand it, because it benefits them the most.

An advertiser is buying my time, that the content creator is selling. I am not paying a content creator by watching an ad. Full stop. I am paying an advertiser my time, then an advertiser pays the content creator. There is a complete fundamental difference between this relationship, and a simple pay a fee to watch a video, and that complexity is very profitable.

The deal being made here is obvious and you’re signing up to give them data in exchange for watching a video. You’re also signing up to view their ads.

I don't buy this rhetoric. By your view, then if I don't watch an ad, then I don't get the content. Yet on YouTube I get the content inspite of declining to view the ad. Some websites do not let me see the content, unless I see their ads. That's fine, I just go to a different site or spend my time doing something else. This rhetoric is to help businesses make money, which is fine, but I have no interest in furthering their narrative. If websites block me from using ad block, then it is entirely within their right to deny me access to their content. *

If you are not paying for a good or service, you are the product. That is my claim. The ad is not the price paid, it is the medium someone is using to collect my market value. Were I to walk to a store, and tell them I wanted something in exchange for seeing their billboard on the highway I'd be laughed out the building.

*Yes there are ways around this, but I think that is outside the scope of this discussion on ads.

Possibly a hot take, but as I understand it, content creators of his size should be viewed that the viewer is the product, content creator is the seller, and the sponsor/advertiser is the buyer. It's the content creators job to sell our eye balls and brain space. However, just as a fish resists being captured by a fisher, I resist being sold. Adblocking is my resistance as a product. So producers of said product need to work harder to get enough of their product to be profitable. Should their be a drought, or if my tools are not maintained properly, then is it stealing if my crops die? Did my wheat fields steal from me when they didn't grow enough for me to be a profitable farmer? I am the product being sold, I don't "owe" them anything for harvesting me. It's up to THEM to make my eyes and data worth harvesting to be sold to advertisers.

To be fair to them, they aren't hosts. Its glaringly obvious they are not in-front-of-camera people. It does feel like its done on purpose to appeal emotionally.

Perhaps not quite as quest driven, but if you like open world combat, check out the Shadow of Mordor/Shadow of War games. Don't take the story too seriously, but they are a fantastic good time.

Enemies that see how to approach them, and if you are too same-y they'll adapt. Focus too much on stealth kills? Enemies have stealth pierceing guards. Tend to go direct melee combat? Big bruiser show up that force you to respect them and dodge. They are not perfect games, and they're a bit older these days, but nothing beats the hunter turn hunted experience of that first play through. I've beaten it years ago, but once in a while I just let my castle fall and go on an orc hunting spree to mastermind a take over once again.

I feel it is highly opinionated because they only officially support a fairly small amount of packages. They're not particularly more up-to-date than say openSuse Tumbleweed. A Debian netinstall is equally a barebones system I can install exactly what I am looking for, and don't need to fiddle with third party repo's like the AUR. As far as I know, almost every distro will let you do a barebones headless install, then build up your system yourself. Arch is certainly less opinionated than Ubuntu, but that's not a big accomplishment these days.

If I were to desire a highly specific environment where I wanted to exactly manage each program's dependency chain myself, Gentoo seems like a much better tool for the job. For example, Arch officially requires systemD, Gentoo does not. As far as I know Gentoo makes no assumptions on how your system is setup, from preboot to Wayland session.

I could just be out of date, as I use NixOS as my workstation and server OS, using Debian for some older servers I haven't migrated yet. I get the impression from Arch, the few times I have used it, is that its niche is appealing to a particular kind of user, rather than being a good solution to a particular kind of problem. That's not bad, its huge reason why its popular. Other distros do the same thing as Arch, sometimes better sometimes worse, but Arch is selling an aesthetic, rather than a tool.

Of all the main stream distros, I never liked Arch. I've been a big fan of and have used Debian and Fedora for years for different uses, I love all the work openSuse does for their GUI configuration, and I respect Slackware and Gentoo for what they are, though I've never use them myself.

Arch always gave me the impression that its fiddly, fragile, and highly opinionated. I think the AUR is a bandaid; its explicitly not supported, yet everyone says its the best reason to use Arch. If I want packages built from source, it just seems that Gentoo does it native to the whole OS and package manager. Nix does too. If I wanted closed-source binaries, flatpak seems like the way the ecosystem is moving and is pretty seemless for my uses. Keeping them with static libraries independent of the OS makes sense to me for something like Spotify, especially since disk space concerns are irrelevant to me.

Opinions on and around Arch are everywhere, both good and bad. I just have never found a situation where I see any benefit to using Arch over Debian for its stability, Alpine for its size, Gentoo for its source building support, or Nix for its declarative approach. So I have grown to loathe its atmosphere.

VPN’s are useful in keeping the ISP’s out of your business from snooping on all your websites that you visit, and all the traffic coming and going from your PC

A VPN isn't a miracle cure-all. You are just transferring all your traffic from your local ISP to another. Usually the new one is by choice, so there is a lot more competition and thus more likely a better service provided.

VPN’s allow pirates to download torrented media, without advertisements, to be enjoyed offline, which streaming doesn’t always do.

Just for clearity, its not the VPN that's enables this. /Some/ VPNs allow for this, and you have to do your due diligence or else you could just be handing all your data straight into a honeypot. VPN providers are rife with paid shills and bad actors.

Not picking on you specifically, but I'd hate to see a fresh recruit find some rando VPN from a youtube ad and think they're in international waters when they're really standing on dry land.

In my experience its mostly sane defaults and a mixed bag in terms of documentation. For anyone else reading this, https://search.nixos.org/options using this to search for all the built in options is usually a good enough starting point for installing something.

Nix does dependencies very differently, since every program and everything it needs are put into their own checksummed directory, then linked into your PATH as requested in your config. So far I've never needed to do anything other than nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch and only needed to reboot for kernel updates.

I mostly work in container spaces, so building things from source, or out-of-repo pkgs, while rare, are done in containers with podman. For example, running Automatic1111's stable diffusion works perfectly for me in a container with an AMD GPU no less. Eventually I'd like to get into flakes, but their still marked experimental so I haven't looked too much into it.

Overall the learning experience is figuring out the overall structure of the system, then taking advantage of all the super powerful tooling and consistency those tools offer.

No worries, UEFI is definitely a "milage may vary" kinda standard.

I've personally only used NixOS and not Nix on a different distro by itself so I'm less familiar with that setup. No system is perfect for all use cases, but that's sorta the point in Unix-land. I personally have been gripped by NixOS and having to go back to Fedora for some of my old servers has been a pain. They use it like a buzzword all the time, but declarative administration is so awesome. It does have a heck of a learning curve though.

Secureboot can use your own keys, which any distro can do regardless. Nix essentially (simplified) rebuilds your whole rootfs every time you do a config change so that every change is fully reproducable.

having a user owned directory folder mounted in root

Do you mean the /nix directory? Nixos doesn't use the same FHS as most distros, so of course it would save its own data somewhere on root, since your actual rootfs is rebuilt declarativly when you request it. IMO it's really elegant, and its hard to go back to files strewn all over the place and the headache of trying to have multiple versions of the same library installed.

You can use GUI stuff in docker as well, though it can be a bit fiddly to setup.

Totally, you can easy do *.test.yourdomain.com and that's works just fine for certbot. Ive never used cloudflare so I'd assume the same setup should work.

OpenSuse, and its commercial sister have been default using btrfs for almost a decade. The "btrfs is beta" meme is a dead horse. Its a great file system for what it was designed to do.