thelittleblackbird @ thelittleblackbird @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

97

Joined

2 yr. ago

Precisely bitwarden movement proves my point. Bitwarden tried to degrade the features/compatibility of the solution and they couldn't because of the vaultwarden implementation.

Can they always add new features after a pay wall? Sure! But once foss Sw is here it is simple impossible to remove functionality, at most, to get some coins for services not fully selfhosted.

If tailscale tries to do something similar is goint to be a shoot into their own leg, because all the sw already disclosed makes it impossible. Could they make the relay a paid one? Sure but then they will face the competence of a vps with the Headscale implementation.

This and only this is because in your home lab only foss Sw should be allowed, even if you need to pay some money from time to time

Honestly, this seems more than your assumptions and fears than anything else.

Clients are open source and foss, the moment something strange is in, Headscale could adapt.

If they finally goes to full close source, then the community will fork (emby - jellyfinn drama).

Your arguments don't hold together, for the good of the community

I really don't see how the enshitification could work when we have the fee version of the central servers Headscale

So yes, it could be a pay wall for some advance featuresike funnels and so on. But the primary use is secured....

I have more than 120 electronic identities, impossible to track the counter or to remember the tld of all websites I visit.

The concepts is only useful in a very small and defined scenario.

I'd Lineageos solving the problem of the camera's quality and the banking application refusing to work?

Honestly I totally disagree, this community is about avoiding SaaS and controlling the important part of the stack to keep your own data under control.

If the service you need is just a provider of vm for your own business, is not a contradiction and it is still selfhosted as long as you control it.

Check it again, I used it for years before switching to something with more features

If you have a prosumer router I suggest you to use the ddns in the router plus a reverse proxy. This would be the cleanest solution.

If you can not, once everything is working with your external access to the synology, the dsm has a built-in reverse proxy so it can redirect http requests to another server. Although this proxy is really simple and limited it can get the work done if you setup is simple enough.

Got it.

But looking that the question has been posted in a selfhosted thread I don't see the recomendation of the cloud solution :)

Why?

There are not benefits in the cloud solution over the hosted server. It could even be more expensive on the long run...

And yes, kasm has a cloud solution in its web page

Tailscale too if you use the fee implementation Headscale

And in both cases you need a vps fully reachable from anywhere

Check Mandos , if you are able to secure enough the server (inside a safe box?) then you are good

Explore kasm, it is fucking amazing Kasm

Performance wise AMD and Intel run circles around the m4, there is not any compititiom here.

Performance Watt per instruction is where the m4 really shines and still I have my reservations

Plenty of ipv4 only in 2025?? Really?? Without a possibility to activate dual stack or just the dslite-crap?

I honestly didn't think this could be a real issue in those years.

Small and stupid question.

Why don't use a ddns client to update your ipv6 evytime it changes? With a ttl of a minute your shouldn't be able to see any downtime...

I (genuinely) thinks you are trying to solve a small problem in the complicated and hard way.. M

The problem with such advance Sw is the overwhelming list of options and the lacks of sane defaults

It is not the same to find 10 different (and complex) solutions when you are evaluating what you can do for solving a problem. It adds more noise to the solution than anything else. And of course the minimum resources needed ;)

For the downloading I suggest you to have the download folder and the main storage both exported under the same nfs folder. Quite handy.

1. It depends of what you want as future proof (expansion capabilities). Usually home user nases come with low power cpu, a high power cpu usually is a enterprise grade nas, really costly for a home user. So having it separated makes the cpu upgrade easy but now you have 2 boxes. But if your terramaster comes with a decent cpu I don't see any problem.
2. True nas scale is really a behemoth able of almost everything. I would start with something more reduced like omv or unraid. You really don't need the advance enterprise features of that and it will add only complexity to the setup.
3. If you use NFS for exporting folders from your nas, the "computing box" will see this as a local folder, so no need to have 2 copies of the same file.

Hope it helps

Huh????

Honestly I don't see your problem, a nuance? Sure! An unsolvable problem? For sure not.

If you want to have your system reachable from the Wan then you will need a domain name. If you have a domain name then it is needed to be resolved by a dns server.

If there is a dns resolver then you would able to update it dynamically every time your ip changes.

True that the time alive of the dns records must be low enough to ensure that an ip change does not let your system down for an unacceptable amount of time.

You got it quite well :)

Have fun with the build