We’re obviously talking about corporations intentionally using open source software with the intention of eliminating it as competition

That’s not what corporations do when they use MIT/BSD code. They rely on that code; it’s not their “competition”. Unless you are talking about stuff like WhatsApp using libsignal, where they do use code from a direct competitor, but that’s far less common, and also not going to have a negative effect on Signal. I can’t speak for Signal of course but they are probably quite happy with WhatsApp using libsignal, as it both spreads Signal’s beliefs about communication being E2EE, and it makes WhatsApp reliant upon Signal. FOSS projects like ffmpeg, curl, etc, are (reasonably!) happy that the entire industry depends on the tool they wrote. And they are kept alive because they are so widely depended upon. Corporations donate to FOSS projects because they need them.

we aren’t talking about the literal definition of the word “stealing”

wtf is a non-literal definition of “stealing”? The idea of stealing is stupid enough already, I can’t play your games to figure out how you extrapolate something sillier from it. I’m a communist. I don’t believe in private property and I don’t give a shit about stealing.

You’re arguing with a strawman you created, no one made any statements about the author.

The original comment called it stealing. There’s nothing morally wrong with stealing, but regardless it’s not even stealing. It’s a stupid argument.

Solid justification for using it for coreutils you got there…

I’m obviously talking about not giving a shit about how people use it. Which makes sense for coreutils. Loads of people use it for loads of different purposes. The author shouldn’t care how people use it.

I continue to fail to see the issue with the author, the person whose actual labour goes into the software, not your labour, deciding that they are fine with their source code being used in any way the general public sees fit provided they simply credit the author and provide a copy of the MIT licence. If I give you something, you’re not stealing by accepting my gift. They’re choosing voluntarily to make their source code available under such a licence. If they weren’t okay with that, they would’ve chosen a copyleft licence.

And you’re dismissing their voice as irrelevant, but as the consumer of the product, their voice is most critical

That seems insanely entitled, but you’re allowed to not use non-copyleft software if you really care that much. The authors of permissively licensed software aren’t forcing you to use their software.

There are plenty of valid reasons to license a work as MIT or BSD or similar. Firstly, libraries are almost always going to be permissively licensed, not just because it allows proprietary software to use those libraries, but also because it allows permissively licensed FOSS to use those libraries. If I want to use a GPL library, it’s not just that I have to make my software FOSS, it’s that I have to make my software GPL specifically. If I want to make a FOSS MIT program, I can’t use any GPL libraries.

Secondly, sometimes it’s because, well, as the licence text provides, I don’t give a shit what you do with the code. I write lots of little tools that are just for myself and I share them in case they’re of use to someone else. If some big corpo uses it in their proprietary money-making machine it’s no shit off my back. It was just a little tool I wrote for myself and it doesn’t affect me if other people use it to make money.

I think GPL is reasonable if a lot of labour goes into a project, and you’d be discouraged from working on it if someone was leeching off of it for their proprietary software. But my MIT/BSD code requires 0 maintenance labour from me, and I don’t care to control how other people use it. That’s the whole point of MIT/BSD/Apache/etc. It’s the “don’t give a shit” licence.

Rust never claimed to be more performant than C. Its performance is equivalent to C.

Author: “I consent to my code being used for proprietary programs!”

Compant: “I consent to using this FOSS code in my proprietary program!”

You for some reason: “I don’t!”

You can fork it and GPL it just fine, the MIT licence allows for that, however anyone who wants to make the codebase proprietary can just fork the original upstream project. Not much point GPLing a project if you make zero changes to it. If you make changes then in practice just your changes are GPLed because anyone wanting to use code from upstream can just use it directly from upstream under MIT.

Most GUI package managers are just wrappers for the package manager CLI.

They’re posix scripts… Any posix compliant bin/sh can interpret them.

You get a domain name, and use an A record to point it towards your server’s public IP address.

You tell nginx to forward requests to a given domain. For instance, you could tell nginx to forward requests to foo.bar.com to 127.0.0.1:1337. To do this:

http {
    server {
        server_name foo.bar.com;
        listen 80;
        
        location / {
            proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:1337$request_uri;
        }
    }
}

Note that this is a very basic setup that doesn’t have HTTPS or anything. If you want an SSL certificate, look into Let’s Encrypt and Certbot.

Also, the service you’re hosting (which I’m not familiar with) may have an example reverse proxy config you should use as a starting point if it exists.

I know that. I just don’t have a use case for alternative shells. Zsh works fine for me and I know how it works. I don’t have problems that need fixing, so I don’t need to take the time to learn a new, incompatible shell.

They have !/bin/sh shebangs. /bin/sh is a symlink, in my case to zsh. I like using one language.

Nushell looks cool but I prefer to stick with the POSIXes so that I know my scripts will always work and syntax always does what I expect it to. I use zsh as a daily driver, and put up with various bashes, ashes, dashes, that come pre-installed with systems I won’t be using loads (e.g. temporary vms).

Been self hosting email for a good while now and it’s been largely painless. My emails are not getting marked spam either. Although my only outgoing mails are to FOSS mailing lists and occasionally to individuals, not for anything business related.

I would say that if self hosting email sounds like something you’d be interested in, then it probably is worthwhile for you. I like being able to configure my mail server exactly the way I want it, and I have some server side scripts I wrote for server side mail processing, which is useful as I have several different mail clients so it makes sense to do processing on the server rather than trying to configure it on my many clients. It definitely falls into the “poweruser” category of activities but I’ve had fun and I enjoy my digital sovereignty.

To be honest, security in the desktop Linux space has traditionally been a bit shit.

Since you’re new, it’s important for you to understand that Linux is a kernel. That’s the most low-down part of your operating system that handles your OS talking to your hardware and vice versa. Linux is not a full OS; it doesn’t provide any userspace tools that an OS provides. That’s why people don’t install Linux on its own, but they install Linux distributions, which are full OSes using the Linux kernel that come with more or less software to make Linux a complete OS, or at least bootable. That means that there is no one way to do things in Linux. There are some Linux distributions that are security-focused, such as Qubes OS and Alpine Linux. There’s also the new immutable distros, which provide security because the entire OS is defined declaratively, meaning you can easily rollback changes, and it’s harder to get infected with malware on those systems. There’s a lot of variability. Some systems are quite secure by default. A lot of other systems do not set up any security measures by default and expect the user to do that.

If you’re interested in hardening your Linux install, I would recommend the Arch wiki’s security page which has a lot of good advice.

Security is a really broad topic and the relevant security measures for you are going to vary based on your threat model. General good practices include using some form of MAC, setting up a firewall, don’t install random crap you don’t need (and if you are getting software from somewhere that isn’t vetted, e.g. the AUR, you should vet it yourself—e.g. if you use the AUR, learn to read PKGBUILDs), use full-disk encryption. Anti-virus software is largely not necessary on Linux, especially if you only install software from your package manager and follow other security good practice.

Do you have an old laptop somewhere? You shouldn’t need a new machine for a home lab if you’re just hosting services. Most of my self hosted services are on a fairly lightweight VPS.

And yeah, I’d second the commenter suggesting you look for a second hand computer somewhere instead of buying HP.

Check the dmesg? Could be a hardware issue. Is it maybe overheating or something?

Why ZFS?

I think in general people start out in VMs and advance to containers. If you are already using containers stick with it, otherwise you are taking a step back.

Interesting perspective—I had thought that running an entire VM would be more difficult, but I’ve never used virtualisation for server stuff, only ever used VMs with a GUI VM manager on my personal computer. Thanks for the input.

I think you should open a Forgejo issue requesting a cache size limit option. It seems like quite a big problem if bots can fill up your hard drive like this without you setting a limit on all data used by Forgejo (when, for single-user instances, you probably only want to limit archive size or size of any data the public can create, not the size of your own repos)

Codeberg Pages. Neocities.