johnklos

"Because you're using adblockers, we're going to punish them."

Sounds about right for Google.

So, now you have to worry about your VPS/Internet provider deplatforming you. Or about your domain name being seized. And spam filtration, backups, redundancy...

Your VPS / ISP better have a good reason to "deplatform". If you're really worried, use two different ones.

Also, people have more problems with being "deplatformed" by Google, often with no reason given, and with no way to communicate with a human about the issue. Look it up. I'd be more worried about that.

DNS isn't a single point of failure. Nor is email when it comes to reception (that's what backup MXs are for). If you need redundancy when it comes to being able to fetch email, you can easily have the primary MX also forward to mailboxes on another host so you have two (or more) copies of everything. None of this is all that hard, and people have been doing it for ages. Give it a try :)

I'm still running Sendmail on NetBSD, the way I've been running it since the '90s.

You'll find plenty of people telling you to not do it, but they mostly seem to think that others shouldn't do things because they can't.

The biggest problem with self-hosting email is deliverability, and it's easily handled by smarthosting through a reputable service, so anyone who says it can't be done hasn't really thought things through very much.

The true value of a company can be measured by our ability to communicate with them. If we can't communicate except after public outrage, then what does that say about the company?

Here's a genuine question: is Proton Mail the least shitty of companies that provide email services?

I self-host email and will continue until I die. But for others who need a company to do this for them, is Proton Mail the least shitty of options? Does this change the evaluation? I'm genuinely curious about the opinion of others here.

I'm one of those people. I compile thousands of open source packages on VAX, m68k, SuperH and other less popular architectures. I think I know at least a bit about how much of this "maintenance" is repeated-but-not-substantiated bull and how much is real.

Claiming that actual maintainers spend more than trivial amounts of time on "maintaining" endianness correctness, I think, is somewhat disrespectful to those maintainers.

You try to make it either/or in the most overly simplistic way possible. I wonder if you do, in fact, know that it's not a matter of only one or the other, but instead of acknowledging that, you'd rather pretent to be ignorant.

Don't tell me to shut up. That's not very nice, no matter your justification. The open source world is definitely not do it yourself or pay, and everyone else needs to shut up. Again, it's more likely that you know this, but you want to be intentionally antagonistic.

You also neatly avoid discussing what I brought up. These things all make me think you're not participating in good faith.

They have no problem with X11 coexisting

You have it wrong. Rather than reuse parts of X11, like the compositors that support hardware that nobody will ever be paid to support, Wayland is trying to reinvent the wheel and replace X11, with support for only what's new and/or popular.

However everyone demanding X11 is really demanding Wayland designers stop their work and go back to X11 - and none of them are paying for that.

Absolutely nobody is demanding that Wayland developers should stop their work and go back to working on X11. Nobody. That's a ridiculous, hyperbolic statement.

What some of us would like to see is Wayland not try to make everything either/or. But, just like systemd, things started with, "you can do both", then went to, "it's harder to do both, but you can", then to, "the old way is dead, so stop writing code that supports it", and eventually to, "let's completely rip out the old way of doing it because "maintenance" and everyone will be forced to use the new way". GNOME is already doing this, even though it's supposed to be open source, platform agnostic and portable.

The fact that you bring up paid work shows you're happy to accept idea that support for things is only worth what people will pay for it. Consider how that fits with corporatization, and consider how that fits with open source in general.

In other words, should all open source project be drivable by some corporation deciding to just throw money at something?

If you think about this for more than 30 seconds, you may finally understand why those of us who aren't fans of the corporatization of Linux and aren't fans of projects that don't interoperate and ultimately end up fragmenting the open source software world are not fans of the eventual consequences of projects like Wayland.

It's not "X11 is great and Wayland sucks" - it's "why is this project fragmenting things rather than interoperating, and why are people so eager to be led by corporations in to supporting corporate interests?"

Discussions about the corporatization of Linux largely move on emotion. Imagine getting flagged multiple times for asserting that writing code that assumes little endianness is bad programming practice, just because someone had a talk where he suggested 32 bit should die and perhaps even all things big endian.

The speaker didn't give any reasons, mind you, why big endian should die other than handwaving about how it means "more maintenance", and the responses to "can you give any examples of how it means "more maintenance" other than saying it?" were largely, "can you give proof it's not "more maintenance"?"

I feel the same happens with Wayland. People who don't understand its position have strong feelings in both directions, yet very little discussion is about the underlying rationale for it in the first place, about who benefits by marginalizing people with non-mainstream hardware and who benefits from forcing the software ecosystem down narrower paths.

X11 and Wayland really should coexist, at least for as long as it takes for Wayland to lose a majority of its major issues, yet Wayland designers didn't seem to think that'd be worthwhile. Some of the projects that're working on making them work together need more attention than they're getting.

I've preserved a number of machines by building them in to rackmount cases. It never occurred to me to make a faux product out of them. This is amazing! The graphics and detail are wonderful.

The story is confusing in that they don't link to the actual project, which you can only get to by visiting the Github link, then going to the developer's projects page, then finding nano11.

I'm not sure, but I think nano11 is even more aggressive than tiny11builder's "tiny11coremaker.ps1":

https://github.com/ntdevlabs/nano11

paving the way to building reliable IGZO transistors with a target lifetime of five years

It almost makes it seem like they want their memory to last five years, as though it's a feature.

When you're building your own CPUs, why be beholden to US companies for GPUs? This makes perfect sense.

GPUs are great if your workload can use them, but not so great for more general tasks. These are more appropriate to more traditional supercomputing tasks, as in they're not optimized for lower precision AI stuff, like NVIDIA GPUs are.

This is beautiful. Thank you, Ken, and thank you, Marilou, for sharing :)

Binary only, and only support for certain processors makes it not very universal. I don't like getting binaries from other people :(

Maybe I should try to port this to the 65CE02 on the Commodore A2232 seven port serial card. It could use one of the serial ports for BASIC input and output.

If I wanted to get fancy, I could even use the Amiga side to load and save programs from the A2232's 16K of memory...

Because marketing?

I suppose if you're buying something for someone who is new to all of this, it might be worthwhile to have many things be RPi branded so if there are issues, there's only one party to worry about.

For starters, Linux is messy. Each distro is different from each other with little consistency. There are even distros specific to device families, like the Raspberry Pi.

Sometimes we don't want to have to keep around a cheat sheet so we can have commands we're accustomed to, then we have the corresponding ones we need to know for a separate device.

The BSDs are much cleaner and more consistent. You can run the same OS on your desktop and your Arm machine. Tinkering is fine, but there's a time and a place for everything, and sometimes we just want to run stuff and tinker with what we're running, not necessarily with the underlying OS.

Amazon is one of the few companies that could benefit the most. Here's an exchange I had with one of their "human" support people:

"Search is broken. If I search for wwvb watch, I get shown tons of watches which are definitely NOT WWVB."

"What browser are you using? Could you try Chrome?"

So Arnd Bergmann thinks that all future systems, embedded included, will have 64 bit CPUs? Or will embedded just stop using Linux and move to the BSDs?

No idea about Windows. No interest, either.

UEFI makes it so you can boot your Unix OS, like NetBSD, without needing to have specific bootblocks that are tailored to the given machine. You can move drives between Arm machines, too. Much simpler.

The ports would easily fit in a 1U case, as would everything else, including the fan and heat sink.

The metal back panel is standard. It'd be nice to have one that's made to fit 1U cases.

The Rock 5 ITX+ is a nice board. I wish a 1U back panel were available for it.

UEFI does make things a lot easier. It's a shame that this isn't more common for Arm boards, but it's good to see things heading in the right direction.

These days we have more meta-software than software. Instead of Apache with virtualhosts, we have a VM running Docker instances, each with an nginx of its own, all connected by a separate Docker of nginx acting as a proxy.

How much waste is there from all this meta-software?

In reality, I host more on Raspberry Pis with USB SSDs than some people host on hundred-plus watt Dells.

At the same time, people constantly compare colo and hardware costs with the cost per month of cloud and say cloud is "cheaper". I don't even bother to point out the broken thinking that leads to that. In reality, we can ignore gatekeepers and run things out of our homes, using VPSes for public IPs when our home ISPs won't allow certain services, and we can still have excellent uptimes, often better than cloud uptimes.

Yes, we can consolidate many, many services in to one machine because most services aren't resource heavy constantly.

Two machines on two different home ISP networks backing each other up can offer greater aggregate uptime than a single "enterprise" (a misnomer, if you ask me, if you're talking about most x86 vendors) server in colo. A single five minute reboot of a Dell a year drops uptime from 100% to 99.999%.

Cloud is such bullshit that it's exhausting even just engaging with people who "but what if" everything, showing they've never even thought about it for more than a minute themselves.

A few nitpicks:

* landlords aren't a good thing.

* "setup" is a noun.

* It'd be helpful to offer some context. For instance, talking about ufw without even mentioning that we're talking about Linux, or even a specific Linux distro, would make most people confused. Same with apt.

These are good guides, but it should be kept in mind that they don't try to teach you anything - they're more guides to simply follow, and if you happen to learn something along the way, great.

But it makes sense to have guides that just tell you how to do a thing and don't explain it, because that represents a good chunk of the people out there. It wouldn't be bad to have links to stuff for those who want to understand what they're doing, though.

Overall, we need more sites like these.

We do know. Don't both-sides here.

This is a problem.

There's a recent phishing campaign with sites hosted by Cloudflare and spam sent through either "noobtech.in" (103.173.40.0/24) or through "worldhost.group" (many, many networks).

"noobtech.in" has no web site, can't accept abuse complaints (their email has spam filters), and they don't respond at all to email asking them for better communication methods. The phishing domains have "mail.(phishing domain)" which resolves back to 103.173.40.0/24. Their upstream is a Russian network that doesn't respond to anything. It's 100% clear that this network is only used for phishing and spam.

It's trivial to block "noobtech.in".

"worldhost.group", though, is a huge hosting conglomerate that owns many, many hosting companies and many, many networks spread across many ASNs. They do not respond to any attempts to communicate with them, but since their web site redirects to "hosting.com", I've sent abuse complaints to them. "hosting.com" has autoresponders saying they'll get back to me, but so far not a single ticket has been answered with anything but the initial autoresponder.

It's really, really difficult to imagine how one would block them, and also difficult to imagine what kind of collateral impact that'd have.

These huge providers, Tencent included, get away with way too much. You can't communicate with them, they don't give the slightest shit about harmful, abusive and/or illegal behavior from their networks, and we have no easy way to simply block them.

I think we, collectively, need to start coming up with things we can do that would make their lives difficult enough for them to take notice. Should we have a public listing of all netblocks that belong to such companies and, as an example, we could choose to autorespond to all email from "worldhost.group" and redirect all web browsing from Tencent so we can tell people that their ISP is malicious?

I don't know what the solution is, but I'd love to feel a bit less like I have no recourse when it comes to these huge mega-corporations.

People are already complaining. Could you imagine how much fodder this'd give people who didn't like the work or the distribution of any funds that a cryptocurrency would create (which would be pennies, I think, and more work to distribute than would be worth doing).

FYI - you can communicate with the author of Anubis, who has already said she's working on ways to make sure that all browsers - links, lynx, dillo, midori, et cetera, work.

Unless you're paying Cloudflare a LOT of money, you won't get to talk with anyone who can or will do anything about issues. They know about their issues and simply don't care.

If you don't mind taking a few minutes, perhaps put some details about your setup in a bug report?

I agree - the article is interesting and not dismissive.

I was talking more about some of the people here ;)

This is a usually technical crowd, so I can't help but wonder if many people genuinely don't get it, or if they are just feigning a lack of understanding to be dismissive of Anubis.

Sure, the people who make the AI scraper bots are going to figure out how to actually do the work. The point is that they hadn't, and this worked for quite a while.

As the botmakers circumvent, new methods of proof-of-notbot will be made available.

It's really as simple as that. If a new method comes out and your site is safe for a month or two, great! That's better than dealing with fifty requests a second, wondering if you can block whole netblocks, and if so, which.

This is like those simple things on submission forms that ask you what 7 + 2 is. Of course everyone knows that a crawler can calculate that! But it takes a human some time and work to tell the crawler HOW.