• 0 Posts
  • 223 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2023

help-circle
  • Um no. Containers are not just chroot. Chroot is a way to isolate or namespace the filesystem giving the process run inside access only to those files. Containers do this. But they also isolate the process id, network, and various other system resources.

    Additionally with runtimes like docker they bring in vastly better tooling around this. Making them much easier to work with. They are like chroot on steroids, not simply marketing fluff.


  • When I change devices or hit file size limits, I’ll compress and send things to my NAS.

    Whaaatt!?!!? That sounds like you don’t use git? You should use git. It is a requirement for basically any job and there is no reason to not use it on every project. Then you can keep your projects on a server somewhere, on your NAS if you want else something like github/gitlab/bitbucket etc. That way it does not really matter about your local projects, only what is on the remote and with decent backups of that you don’t need to constantly archive things from your local machine.



  • I don’t get it? They seem to be arguing in favor of bootc over systemd because bootc supports both split /usr and /usr merge? But systemd is the same. There is really nothing in systemd that requires it one way or another even in the linked post about systemd it says:

    Note that this page discusses a topic that is actually independent of systemd. systemd supports both systems with split and with merged /usr, and the /usr merge also makes sense for systemd-less systems.

    I don’t really get his points for it either. Basically boils down to they don’t like mutable root filesystem becuase the symlinks are so load bearing… but most distros before use merge had writable /bin anyway and nothing is stopping you from mounting the root fs as read-only in a usr merge distro.

    And their main argument /opt and similar don’t follow /usr merge as well as things like docker. But /opt is just a dumping ground for things that don’t fir the file hierarchy and docker containers you can do what you want - like any package really nothing needs to follow the unix filesystem hierarchy. I don’t get what any of that has to do with bootc nor /usr merge at all.


  • TLDR; yes it does affect security. But quite likely not by any meaningful amount to be worth worrying about.

    Any extra package you install is extra code on your system that has a chance to include vulnerabilities and thus could be an extra attack vector on your system. But the chances that they will affect you are minuscule at best. Unless you have some from of higher threat model then I would not worry about it. There are far more things you would want to tackle first to increase your security that have far larger effects than a second desktop environment being installed.



  • nous@programming.devtoLinux@lemmy.mlShould I be worried?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    26 days ago

    If you have everything you need backed up you can reinstall on a new hard drive and restore everything you need. So you should not be completely fucked. Just an inconvenience you might have to go through. You will lose the stuff not backed up so if any of that is a pain to get again it might be more painful to restore everything.

    Others have said some thing you might want to try. But having a spare disk you can swap to is never a bad idea. Disks to fail and you should plan for what to do when they do. Backing up your data is a good first step.

    I would say it is not a bad idea to just get a new disk now and go through the process of restoring everything anyway - you can treat it like your disk has failed and do what you would need to do to restore. With the ability to swap back when you need to.

    This is a good way to find things you might have missed in your backups.











  • Musl, systemd, Freedesktop, etc. were never OS projects. GNU and Linux are OSes.

    What the hell makes a project an OS project? What even is an OS - that is a debate as old as computers. What makes GNU more of an OS than systemd or musl or anything else? GNU is not a complete OS on its own. It has failed to meet that goal for decades. Is it just because it claims that title? Are the other projects just not ambitious enough? Hell why are we not raising pitchforks at GNU for being a all encompassing project that wants to consume everything like everyone complains systemd is trying to do?

    The lines drawn here are meaningless and arbitrary. GNU is no more important to my systems as any other project mentioned here and makes up no more of my system then they do. I don’t see why so many are obsessed with singling out GNU and explicitly excluding everything else. It is a pointless distinction created by a guy that was pissy that his pet project was not getting the attention he thought it deserved.


  • Why not also recognize systemd, or musl, or kde or gnome or any of the other millions of non GNU packages that are needed to make up a complete OS.

    Fuck if I am going to rattle off all my installed packages every time I want to mention what OS I am running. Linux is good enough. People know what you mean when you say it. And these days GNU makes up less and less of the core packages that most distros run anymore.

    Also the copy pasta that this all stems from explicitly calls out eliminating nonfree programs which most popular distros do not do these days:

    Making a free GNU/Linux distribution is not just a matter of eliminating various nonfree programs. Nowadays, the usual version of Linux contains nonfree programs too. These programs are intended to be loaded into I/O devices when the system starts, and they are included, as long series of numbers, in the “source code” of Linux. Thus, maintaining free GNU/Linux distributions now entails maintaining a free version of Linux too.

    And they even link to a vanishingly small number of approved free GNU/Linux distros. Of which non of the mainstream distros are listed. So can we really label anything not on that list as GNU/Linux?



  • If the trademark is indeed on the wordpress.org foundation and not the wordpress.com company, I didn’t think that’s a fair argument.

    It is but the trademark is licensed to Automattic which handles all further commercial sub-licensing. And the CEO of Automattic sits on the board of the workpress foundation and is the creator of wordpress itself.

    I don’t think either is a cancer to the FOSS Wordpress ecosystem. Both seem to give back.

    I believe that this all started as the Automattic CEO did not think that WPEngine was contributing enough back to the wordpress ecosystem. Even after years of attempts to negotiate this. Seems he gave up trying and went after them for trademark rules as that was the only real leaver he had to pull. Since there is no obligation for WPEngine to contribute back to wordpress directly.

    WPEngine using the Wordpress trademark makes me think they’re using Wordpress

    Apparently this is contentious enough to be disputed in court not everyone thinks this and there are enough people that are confused over the matter that Automattic believe they can prove a trademark volition in court.

    Lots more details in this interview with automattic CEO.

    Dont know whos right here. Probably both sides are wrong to some degree. But worth hearing both sides of the argument before making a decision.