• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 20th, 2024

help-circle

  • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonemicrulesoft
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I regularly meet Linux elitists not understanding that I want a UI for my debuggers, not an automated script.

    I don’t know. It doesn’t make any sense that someone would be against a UI for something. It is just mostly a bunch of volunteers working on their own projects. I could see a volunteer saying something like “nah, I’m OK with it the way it is” because they are working on something for free, usually for themselves and sharing it for others to use and/or contribute to.

    It seems odd that you’d complaining to some project maintainers and calling them elitists for not working on your suggestion and even odder still because I’d imagine many would be thrilled for someone to contribute to building a UI, even if it’s just mock-ups. Unless you’re talking about some random people in the Linux community but I don’t really see any point in doing that since they probably have nothing to do with whatever projects you’re talking about.

    What would adding a GUI to a command line app even change about it as far as the command line? It isn’t as if you either get one or the other; you can have both. It just doesn’t make sense.


  • Having a NAT on a consumer router is indeed the norm. I don’t even see how you could say it is not.

    I never said NAT = security. As a matter of fact, I even said

    It was not designed for security but coincidentally blah blah

    But hey, strawmanning didn’t stop your original comment to me either, so why stop there?

    Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall.

    I never even implied the opposite.

    To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called masquerade.

    Right, because masquerade is NAT…specifically Source NAT.

    I’m just going to go ahead an unsubscribe from this conversation.




  • Because, as I said:

    layer 7 firewalls for the network which are going to be where most the majority of attacks are concentrated.

    The NAT doesn’t have to operate at layer 7 to be effective for this because

    coincidentally it is doing the heavy lifting for home network security because it is dropping packets from connections originating from outside the network, barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.

    The point is that the SPI firewalls are not protecting against the majority of the attacks we’ve seen for decades now from botnets and other arbitrary sources of attacks, except, perhaps targeted DDoSing which isn’t the big problems for most home networks. They must worry about having their OS’ and software exploited and owned in the background, which doesn’t get much of an assist from a router’s firewall.

    Obviously, this is however true for the NAT since the NAT are going to drop connections originating from outside the network attempting to communicate with that software to exploit it

    barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.



  • The word you are looking for is firewall not NAT.

    No the word I’m looking for is the NAT. It was not designed for security but coincidentally it is doing the heavy lifting for home network security because it is dropping packets from connections originating from outside the network, barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.

    Consumer router firewalls are generally trash, certainly aren’t layer 7 firewalls protecting from all the SMB, printer, AD, etc etc vulnerabilities and definitely are not doing the heavy lifting.

    By and large automated attacks are not thwarted by the firewall but by the one-way NAT.






  • It really depends on what model you want to run and how much training is bundled with it. You can pretty much run any model if you have enough disk space but of course GPU + VRAM is preferred for a ChatGPT like fast response. Otherwise, running on an older CPU and RAM is going to be noticeably slower, especially with complex models with a lot of training data to trawl through.

    There are some pretty lite models out there but the responses will be more barebones and probably seem ‘less informed’.

    Give GPT4All a try for your first time. It makes install, configuration and usage point-and-click while being fairly straight forward. For the presented/featured models, it presents a small summary and VRAM recommended, though there are many, many other models available from inside the UI.



  • Not that I’m defending it but the data and the model itself on Recall stays all local and encrypted, according to Microsoft. It also says it won’t use it for ad targeting or will sell the data. Of course, the caveat is that is what they are saying right now and may not be saying in the future. We’ve obviously seen strategies where gradually things move down the spectrum as it continuously normalizes.

    With MS we’ve seen the “Start” menu advertise Candy Crush forever and then “recommended apps” and it isn’t a far step to show “sponsored recommended apps” and then just “sponsored content” as things continue to become more normal for everyone, especially if its for the “Home” version or whatever. People will just argue to pay whatever for a Pro license.

    Going to full blown ads now though? It’ll piss the consumer off. Do it gradually over a decade? There will be some rumblings, sure, but it probably won’t matter. By then they might be able to give you a “free” cloud VDI (with lots ads from the OS) with less ads and CPU/GPU power based on subscription tiers and you just need to buy a cheap $30 thin client and everyone will just be OK with that.


  • For those that don’t know, they are going to release something called FreeLlama which might be FOSS (no public info as to what the license actually will be).

    Winamp says that they still want to control ‘what features’ go into winamp and it’ll remain proprietary. I assume they really just want people to contribute interesting things to FreeLlama and then put the contribution into Winamp.

    The license probably won’t be FOSS because they probably aren’t going to want anyone contributing to own copyright to the code that they are committing.

    It is odd because FOSS contributors aren’t really known for being OK with this sort of thing in the past, so I doubt they’re going to get much out of it. Maybe it’s a Hail Mary and they’ll end up blaming people for not freely giving up their devtime and creativity to a company that wants to make money on it.