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/)MO
Posts
18
Comments
438
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Because it's not their responsibility to add a feature people primarily use on servers to an installer built for desktop usage. Because there installer isn't bad, it's loved exactly for the ability to automate it. Because their installer works, and it doesn't take a lot of manpower. According to debian salsa, it basically only receives translations and package updates, some of that automated.

    Why have the debian devs go off and add support a whole another installer (by support I mean actually attempt to add features to it) when they have a perfectly nice, working installer? The devs have more important things to do.

  • Well damn, I guess fraud must be a lot more widespread than I thought. Because no one seems to get punished for this behavior. Just recently, Lockpick, a tool for getting Nintendo Switch roms off a physical device, was dmca'd, and the person who filed the complaint admitted to doing so on twitter. They received no punishment.

    I think it's likely that this is a similar case.

  • Isn't that what copyright/patent trolls are? People who lodge complaints on the behalf of others, regardless of whether or not the original owner of the intellectual property actually cares, or in some cases, even is legally allowed to do so? If it's the original owner, then it's usually just considered to be protecting property.

  • While not what OP wants, this is what I want, but it isn't working for me. I am trying expose a subnet behind nat, to a public server. I am currently testing this by attempting to expose the vlan created by libvirt on my laptop to my public vps. I followed the linked point to site guide, and ironically, the virtual machines created on my laptop can access the wireguard subnet, but public vps cannot access the virtual machines? (the guide said that it would be the opposite without the iptables nat/masquerade rules) I am guessing because I am doing this somewhat backwards, where the device exposing the lan is behind nat, whereas it is the other way around in the guides that I have seen.