Wouldn’t it be better if reverse proxies simply had a “default key” meant to encrypt the SNI after an unencrypted “hello” is received?

Including DNS in this seems weird.

I was about to say… Isn’t using public wifi’s extremely dangerous?

People downvoting you clearly don’t know that school administration can be into bullying as much as the kids. Talking by experience. I think you can report the images in Instagram by saying you’re in them and don’t want to be.

No humor in Lemmy, please.

Mmm do you know Linux containers? Like Docker containers, for example?

You need to understand Linux namespace and Linux containers to understand this trick. It isn’t super advanced to be honest, just a Linux feature that is very useful.

It can be overwhelming if you haven’t worked with containers before: https://youtu.be/fTcit7F5Bcg?si=rQlq0mJyapIpOlx8

Basically you can have multiple “network stacks” in the same machine, and they are isolated. By network stacks I mean things like the netfilter rules and the routing rules.

So, if you deploy a VPN inside a network namespace that isn’t the host’s namespace, the host won’t route the traffic to the VPN by default. Only the processes that are attached to that network namespace will process the network packets with the netfilter and routing rules of that namespace. So, if you only attach the Firefox process to the network namespace of the VPN, only the traffic generated by that process will go through the tunnel.

I usually have a VPN client running in a container and then attach the browser instance to the network namespace of the container.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Copying and pasting passwords is definetely a no-no for me.

And that’s why I’m saying social democracy is a realistic solution. The way the world works right now makes breaking this dependency something idealistic. So you can either fantasize with ideals all day long or you can get closer to your objective.

And yet, I’m not going bankrupt after someone in my family used an ambulance.

Well, show me a single system (currently implemented, not ideal or imaginary) that isn’t exploiting goods and labor from the third world.

Exactly. They are twisting reality to justify their shirty actions.

Yeha, that’s my point. They automatically put you in the far-right if you don’t agree with a principle of communism.

The US is the largest global economy. How is it that free healthcare is a thing even in developing countries?

A few days ago my grandfather used an ambulance and the total cost was $0. I live in a developing country.

I see a fellow social democrat and I upvote.

People here think that if you agree with private property and private incentive then you suck billionaires d*cks.

Man, there is a whole spectrum that is much more realistic than pure communism or socialism.

OK, so is Redhat breaking any license? Do you really think a company like Redhat would open itself to thousands of lawsuits like that. The CEO already explained that this is totally legal and covered by GPL. They are in fact distributing the source to the people receiving the product. This is exactly what GPL says. They are not forced to open the source code to people who aren’t getting the distributed software.

What is your complaint then? They are not breaking any law and they are following the GPL license.

I was using the webframework/language as examples because you said this wasn’t a matter of law but a matter of principle. So why does the principle apply to Redhat but not the million other products that totally depend on FOSS on their core?

So many projects do in fact distribute the FOSS, but they use more permissive licenses like MIT, Apache or LGPL. BUT you’re saying the law is not relevant, what matters is the principle. So why don’t everyone release their code if they depend on FOSS on their core products? Because they aren’t breaking the Apache or MIT licenses? Well, that’s great! Redhar isn’t breaking the GPL license either. Why must Redhat follow whatever subjective principles you have?

— “hey there’s this company creating a commercial product around FOSS. They aren’t breaking any license.”

— “Nice, as long as the licenses aren’t compromised”

— “It’s Redhat”

— “Those mofos! How dare they!”

Well, the re-builders would be breaking the law now that the source code isn’t available for non-paying customers. They weren’t breaking the law before.

So, do you expect every company to release the source code of their products just because they used a FOSS web framework or a FOSS programming language like Python? Or by the same logic, for companies to release the source code of their products if their developers use Linux in their development machines? Or if they use Linux to deploy their applications in the cloud? That’s such an unreasonable position.

So you never intended to buy the product but you intended to use it?

Do you understand they are charging you for the usage, not for your intentions or moral views?

Push bracelets on you? Who is forcing you to use their software? Please let me know, we can call the police man, that’s fucked up.

1. they are not breaking any law. This is totally allowed. You can use FOSS to create a commercial product.

2. they are major contributors to the Linux space. And they’ll keep contributing.

3. It’s their effort, they created a business around it, and it cycles back to push Linux forward.

4. this isn’t even going to affect average users. This is going to take money from companies that probably have the money to pay. For other companies, there are other distributions available.

You’re taking away the profit they deserve for the work and effort it took them to create the information.