• 2 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 8th, 2023

help-circle





  • Yeah, I’m going with a tiny dedicated infra bootstrapping box with all the tools I’d need to bootstrap the main infrastructure.

    Using a hypervisor (proxmox in this case) I have some prebuilt vms’s and container images that I can use for the bootstrap instances so i’d not need to completely hand roll it again should it be needed.

    I’m looking at cloudinit scripts to see if that’s useful for this.

    I really like packer but I’m hesitant to rely on anything hashicorp until whatever they have going on shakes out.

    Then I just load up the bootstrap box with the main infra code and use woodpecker to deploy.

    Code and config backed up, also mirrored to newly created infra forgejo instances, just in case.

    If I can get a semi presentable cloud init based bootstrap system working nicely I’ll stick it somewhere people can get to it, in case it’s useful to someone else.


  • I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.

    The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

    Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

    Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.

    Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

    Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

    To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

    Much like the “true” 1 open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” 2 variations.

    1 As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

    2 Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with 1

    edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable


  • “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.

    I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.

    The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.

    There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.




  • What problems are you struggling with specifically?

    You basically just pick a system, for example Forgejo - that’s comparable to a self-hosted github. Which also comes with github-like actions for CI/CD/Building

    I can deploy these by hand sure, but is that the only way ?

    Let’s assume forgejo and woodpecker.

    I’d need to spin up each service + the db (postgres probably) for each.

    Given i’d not have an SCM system or build pipelines until after they were deployed, am i just doing it by hand and hoping for the best or working with something like ansible, saving the scripts to a folder somewhere and manually running them myself?

    How about future maintenance or reproducibility?

    I’m fully capable of doing it by hand and not against it, just wasn’t sure if there was a commonly used bootstrapping mechanism i wasn’t aware of.





  • I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

    Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?

    Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

    Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

    Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”

    A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

    Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

    Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”



  • I don’t think there’s any data Microsoft can get through you using edge that they can’t also get just by controlling your OS

    I’d put mid-level money on that not being true. There are a lot of things going on in a browser, a lot of which aren’t particularly easy to access from the outside.

    Not to say it isn’t possible.

    There are valid reasons to use windows and if you’ve gotta use it anyway they’ve already got your data from the start

    To a degree yes, but assuming they aren’t pulling nefarious shit in the background, there are in theory many things you can turn off or somewhat neutralise using the options in the OS to reduce the level of data collection.

    They are slowly removing those options but they still exist for now.

    Again, i fully understand people not wanting to go to the trouble to achieve a goal they don’t care about, but that isn’t the same as there being nothing you can do if you wish to.


  • There shouldn’t be any of the Googled parts of Chrome in Edge, just as there aren’t any Googled parts of Chrome in stock Chromium.

    There are at the very least googled parts of chromium in it though : https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

    Unless google have significantly changed the way they package and build chromium recently there are still google web service dependencies and i believe binary blobs (though they may have changed the closed source blob policy iirc)

    Of course, you are now giving your data to Microsoft instead of Google, which isn’t really a win or a lose. If you’re not paying for the software, you’re either using FOSS, or the software is paid for by selling access to you and your computer.

    Indeed


  • If you’re using windows you’re already giving Microsoft data so may as well

    While technically correct, to me this sounds like “You haven’t managed to stop some of the tracking, why not just give them everything?” which is personally not my approach.

    Not to say that my approach isn’t effort and is even effective, but I’d much rather limit the damage in the ways i can rather than give up entirely. I can see why someone wouldn’t want to put in that kind of effort though and i don’t fault them for it.

    Edge uses chromium not chrome, I would hazard a guess there’s much less data harvesting going on in base chromium given it’s open source and people can see exactly what they collect

    Open source yes, but not necessarily free from data-harvesting.

    The fact that un-googled chromium (and others like it) exist implies that straight up chromium being open source isn’t a guarantee they aren’t doing consumer-hostile shit anyway.

    Though, yes, it’s almost certainly less than full-fat chrome.