What makes a registrar more privacy focused than another. Just had a read of their website, but couldn’t understand why they’re better for privacy than any other
They own the domain instead of you. They can then act as a middle man between any inquiries and you, and as a company, they’re able to shield you from many 3rd parties.
That’s interesting. So they buy the domain on your behalf and then rent it out to you. Pretty cool concept
That said, I’ve owned a fair few domains and never had to deal with 3rd parties, so I’m not sure if the added security risk (however small) of them hijacking your domain is worth it. For me, at least. YMMV
SBC (specifically RPis) got more expensive. x86 got more powerful, more importantly more efficient, and cheaper. Also X86 has more software built for it than ARM.
There are a few X86 SBCs now though.
If you already have SBCs and they’re doing what you need, I see no reason to switch.
It would be a shame not to shamelessly plug author (and anti-DRM activist) Cory Doctorow here. He has some really fun science fiction, and sells his audio books DRM-free through various sources.
Shamelessly, because lots of his protagonists are self-hosters of various types.
Gonna second Silverbullet. I’m a current logseq user, but I’m really liking the direction of this. Mainly because of the ease of accessing from multiple devices such as desktop, laptop, and mobile. I’m currently opening my logseq graph in sb on my android phone. Once I switch over fully, I won’t have to worry about syncing my logseq graph.
I kind of get it. Note apps are normally horribly cumbersome data serialization ecosystems you have to invest a lot of time into before you really feel like its doing anything more than a standard text editor could
I meant beast in the figurative sense. It’s not a desktop app, which perhaps doesn’t make that much of a difference. I wrote it so I think I’m entitled to call my own software a beast 😂
Not until it’s a mandatory popup or recommendation any time you want to watch. Or maybe mandatory ads and popups on “new releases”. With Plex, nothing surprises me now.
I believe they used heritrix at one point. The important bit is that there is a special archive format that they use which is a standard. There are several tools that support it (both capturing to it and viewing it) - it allows for capturing a website in a ‘working’ condition with history or something. I’m a bit fuzzy on it since it’s been some time since I looked into it.
What’s wrong with miracast? Almost every device sold these days has some kind of radio, but no way to talk to each other. Releasing a new standard every few years won’t help much.
I don’t know the specifics of Miracast, but my impression was that it is specifically used to cast a video stream from one device to another device. That is sometimes useful, but not what I typically use my Chromecast for.
The most useful feature of my Chromecast is the ability to be logged into Plex/Netflix/HBO/Spotify/YouTube/etc on my (or my guest’s) mobile device, and effectively send a link and a (probably ephemeral) token to the Chromecast so that it can stream directly from the server to the Chromecast without my mobile device spending battery power and bandwidth being a middle-man.
And I assume the difficult part here is down to copyright reasons. Most of those streaming sites already limit the number of devices you can permit to stream content (which sucks, but is besides the point), so my impression is that they need to have some kind of under-the-table agreement with the Chromecast/Roku/Firestick/Apple TV/etc. folks to ensure that the device will correctly validate the credentials, not save any of the content, and properly dispose of everything when it’s done. And I assume Google has similar talks about when a device on the network is allowed to be listed as a casting device to apps.
Isn’t Miracast for sending video data? The thing I like about Chromecast is that the phone or remote app just tells the Chromecast where to load the media directly from, and then only sends playback control commands. That makes it a lot lighter resource wise because you don’t need to proxy the stream through a device like a phone that wants to go to sleep to save battery.
I’ve seen a lot of descriptions of Tailscale but still have no idea what exactly it does. I get that it uses Wireguard, but what differentiates it from a typical VPN setup? NAT traversal?
It does the wireguard config for you so you don’t have to reconfigure each machine when a new item is added to your network. Still peer to peer type network rather than single vpn to a lan router
This looks promising, but unfortunately the advertised just replace github.com with some alternative host doesn’t work. I can’t check the issues, wiki, etc, all pages give me error (except main repo url), eg:
Your basic components will be an old desktop you have lying around and two hard drives. Put the two hard drives in RAID 1 (mirroring) set with either a network share and/or FTP access to add/remove stuff from the array. The drives optimally should be the same size, but if they aren’t that is OK, the amount of redundant space available will the the size of the smaller of the two drives.
Depending on what you have lying around this might not cost you anything. However, if you are going to spend money anywhere it should be on the drives themselves. You probably don’t need anything fancy, just a pair of 5400RPM HDDs that are large enough to hold your data, plus some room to grow.
You can use any OS of your choosing as basically everything supports the requirements. Linux, Windows, and TrueNAS come to mind as viable options. You may or may not want a third, tiny, drive just to boot the OS, particularly for Windows, as it can make things easier. I personally use Linux for my basic NAS with SFTP access.
Generally speaking, any device (“server”) hosting a “service” NEEDS to be assigned a static IP. It simplifies routing significantly and avoids random break problems because DHCP is incredibly stupid at times…
Is there any specific reason you need DHCP to assign an IP to your main hosting server vs setting it all statically?
Moving it to it’s own system will not fix the routing problem. You can probably still leave it on the USG.
You should be able to set a fixed static IP on your server, and then also statically assign that same IP to your server in your USG DHCP config- as long as they both are “thinking about” the same IP I think routing should work correctly.
If that breaks, try just assigning the static IP only from the USG side or only from the server’s side. I’m 90% sure that even if the USG does not have your server machine in it’s client list, if it sends broadcast packets to an entered IP looking for the unifi server, and the unifi server is listening on that manually set IP, they should be able to talk.
disclaimer: i am high as shit right now and this may be bullshit
Is there any specific reason you need DHCP to assign an IP to your main hosting server vs setting it all statically?
I’ve done this. I think the real problem is if I ever change the server MAC or IP, as now the unifi server isn’t picked up by the USG, which means I can’t change the static address.
I don’t give my personal email address to literally anyone. Everyone gets an alias.
Once someone gets your personal email address and leaks it, there is no way to stop spam. You cannot delete your personal address because it is your account identity.
Firefox Relay, AnonAddy, SimpleLogin, all great services.
I have a business email address that I’m just unfortunately stuck digging through spam.
Did you know that you can use Joplin on a standard webdav server? Basically it just takes up the space of the data itself. I have it on a Caddy server and works like q charm synching between Windows and Android client
selfhosted
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.