I’m weirded out by their “why need an account” explanation when Mullvad has a perfectly viable solution that doesn’t require one. “We don’t link your queries to you” is a vastly different claim from a “we can’t link your queries to you” one. Still, considering who we compare them to…
On a personal note, Google search is so infuriatingly shitty lately that I’d been thinking about switching to another service. This does look to be worth a try.
Mullvad can offer that because they generate you a one time access token that’s good until a certain time for a set number of simultaneous clients.
Kagi could do a simpler version - an access token that’s good until a certain number of searches. In fact, they have that mostly built - the link they tell you to use in private sessions is literally it.
Add to that anonymized payment options, and you got yourself a hard to track design.
Generally speaking, you never want to use a low port (<1024) for anything other than the service assigned to it, because it causes all kinds of headache. Both on your side and on the other side. As for high ports, pick whichever one you prefer. They don’t have any binding to a given service, though there are some conventions.
The thing that shows people you’re running a VPN is not the port but the protocol header, so changing the port is pretty much useless if you want your ISP to not know you’re running a VPN for some reason.
If anyone is interested, there’s a windows tool called AtlasOS, atlasos.net, that is a significant debloat tool. It’s designed for gamers to get as much fps and performance out of their system as possible. Yes I’ve had things break, and yes it’s a security issue, but I’ve never had a problem with the games I play. I like the idea and enjoy trying it out when Linux isn’t an option for something I’m trying to do.
its lack of protocol support from firefox end. Firefox doesn’t support the FS API. The logseq team plans to migrate to a different protocol that is supported by FF OPFS
I remember this being marketed as the Emacs Org mode + Org Roam combo for the masses, which is totally fine. However, if you want true control over your data and you’re willing to step out of your comfort zone, consider using Emacs + Syncthing
Both are pretty versatile and make use of local markdown files. Logseq is more ouliner/bulleted note focused, while Obsidian is paragraph first (but with plugins for either you can really modify this quite a bit). Another difference is Obsidian organizes things into folders, while Logseq's organization is flatter and more reliant on tags and hyperlinks to connect things (although you can nest pages, for instance having pages like this: pets, pets/cats, pets/dogs). Obsidian is more stable with a larger plugin ecosystem, but Logseq is being very rapidly developed and the dev team is super responsive.
Finally, Logseq is open source, while Obsidian is not. Their monetization models are pretty similar too, with the free version of both being really generous and limited features like Logseq/Obsidian-native Sync being available for a $5 monthly subscription. I regularly use both and encourage you to check them both out and explore what works for you.
privacyguides
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.