xapr

joined 1 year ago
[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 days ago

It still does? They have a version for people with internet access, and a version for people without, with a heavy dose of offline applications and information. You can also download more offline resources after you install it.

https://www.endlessos.org/os-direct-download

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Everyone seems to use themselves as the reference point for what is too much or too little of anything. Hence the funny and wise quote from George Carlin:

Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

George Carlin

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 days ago

Thank you, that makes sense. I figure that separation provided by VMs and containers is also a security advantage, in case the software in them has vulnerabilities.

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 4 days ago

Watch him try to deny it, like Austin Powers trying to deny that the Swedish penis pump was his, until they also bring out the "Swedish penis pumps are my bag, baby, by Austin Powers" book with a photo of him on the cover.

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pJXNJfb3yk

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 days ago
[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Thank you. Is the only reason that you run it in containers for the easy reproducibility, or is there any other reason that you want that separation from the bare metal OS?

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Thank you. So the advantage of the isolation of LXC for you is to be able to tinker with the service without affecting the host.

 

My environment is a (freshly installed) Debian server with ZFS pools. I would like to store files in ZFS and share them using Samba.

My question is which is better from efficiency, effort, and security (for the host) perspectives? Running it natively on the bare-metal Debian host, running it in an LXC container, or running it in a VM? Why do you think one way is better than the others? I'm pretty familiar with VMs, but don't have much experience or knowledge of containers.

This is what I'm thinking at the moment, but I would appreciate any feedback:

  1. Natively: no resource overhead, medium admin overhead (manual Samba configuration), least secure(?)
  2. LXC: small resource overhead, least admin overhead (preconfigured containers and/or reproducible configs), possibly more security than native(?)
  3. VM: most resource overhead, most admin overhead (not only manual configuration, but also managing virtual disk [including snapshots, backups, etc]), most secure
[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

From my understanding, the reason for this is to give candidates with less funds and less name recognition an opportunity to bubble up. Imagine that if the primary consisted of all states at the same time, candidates would need to campaign nationally, or only in the most populous states, either of which would cost tons of money. This would make it so that only candidates already starting off with massive campaign funds would have any chance.

One possible alternative approach would be to start with the smallest states (either by population or by area), one at a time, and ramp up to multiple largest states at the end of the primary cycle. This would give candidates a viable way to ramp up their campaign funds and name recognition. The only problem with this approach would be that the smallest states tend to be very white, so perhaps some adjustments would need to be made to make it more representative of the demographics of the country as a whole from the beginning.

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ooof, I hadn't even thought about this possibility! They could splice up some absolutely wild ads of Trump surrogates appearing to criticize Trump for being too old and senile!

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, sorry you don't see it, but 2020 was as bad as, if not worse than 2016 for the dirty tricks against Bernie. Sorry, but for all the candidates who were contending for the same voters as Biden to drop out at once, but the one candidate who was contending for the same voters as Bernie not dropping out for the the same reason (they couldn't win) stunk to high heaven. That wasn't "just politics" any more than the Superdelegates were in 2016. Both were pure, undemocratic manipulation.

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago

True story: I bought my current printer from a homeless man. I had actually found the printer in a box that someone had left on the curb across the street the night before, so I knew it wasn't stolen. I was going to take it home but was walking away from home at the time and didn't get a chance that night. The next day I saw it with the homeless man across the street and offered to buy it.

 

I learned about this many years ago and the difference after I started using only SLS-free toothpaste was night and day. I used to get canker sores any time I would bite the inside of my cheek, hit my gums with the hard parts of my toothbrush, etc., and this completely stopped a while after I switched to SLS-free.

SLS is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, by the way, and it's a detergent. From what I understand, the only reason why it's added to toothpaste is to make more foam when you brush. But the SLS-free toothpaste I use makes plenty of foam, so I have no idea why they add it. It's one of those things about the modern world that makes absolutely no sense. The ads and packaging should say in big letters: "now with even more canker sores!"

Unfortunately, the vast majority of toothpastes on the market (at least in the US) have SLS. I can only seem to find SLS-free toothpaste in natural food/supplement stores. It's extra difficult to find toothpastes that are SLS-free but that keep fluoride too. The difficulty (and price? I haven't compared) is completely worth it to me though.

TL;DR: The SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) in most toothpastes is unnecessary and causes canker sores (painful sores in your mouth and gums). If you have this problem, you will likely benefit from SLS-free toothpaste (some still include fluoride) that you can usually find at natural food stores.

 

You should know that the issue with many communities on other Lemmy instances that you subscribed to showing a "subscribe pending" status has mostly been resolved.

I looked in my subscribed communities list, found all the pending ones, opened them, unsubscribed (clicked the yellow "subscribe pending" button) and resubscribed. After that, I refreshed the page and I was now fully subscribed to them, regardless of which Lemmy instance hosts the community.

The only exception, unfortunately, was with kbin communities. All the kbin.social ones still showed subscribe pending for me even after following the same procedure. Still, this is a big improvement over having a bunch of half-subscribed communities.

I know that the pending status didn't have much of a negative effect on my end because I would still get those in my subscribed feed, but I hoped for the communities' subscriber numbers to fully reflect the actual number of subscribers.

 

I have an issue with some servers at work where I have been unable to determine the best course of action to address it based on pre-existing knowledge within my team or web searches. Does anyone have suggestions for the best place to ask RHEL-specific questions? I don't want to presume that it's OK to post such nitty-gritty technical questions here.

view more: next ›