Yggstyle

Our software is basically a web app that makes it easier to install and manage supported third-party apps. Wireguard (currently) is only used for remote access, if you don’t need that you don’t have to turn it on.

So my point I was driving at - especially with such a diverse offering of wireguard services which do not charge for (effectively) VPN access to your own infrastructure - I was more interested in why your service would be looking to pay gate it as a “premium” feature.

This would be different if we were talking you hosting all these services on your infrastructure but considering the marketing to homelab - I find it to be an unusual choice… And was curious as to the reason for the decision.

For security, everything runs in an isolated sandbox using docker and that also answers your other question.

Right. Docker does sandboxing. That’s a core feature it provides - I’m just trying to ascertain what precisely your company is actually offering outside of a ui wrapper on these established services.

I mentioned earlier that your branding seems to emphasize security - but all I’m seeing is mention of existing security features inherent in the software being wrapped. Does your team do additional tuning for security? Do they have experience in infrastructure security, hardening systems, or the like? To be clear I just want to better understand the branding and what is being offered.

the same goes for backups, they can be geo-redundant if you use our service, but these are optional feature.

Alright so this is a feature that a homelab user can actually use - backups. Could you expand on how you will be managing this feature / plan to implement it once it is offered?

Alright so I’ll ask a hardball question or two. What precisely are you offering that isn’t just repackaged install scripts and a wireguard wrapper?

What is your / your teams background in software security? The implication of the name and your “branding” are selling a lot - what outside of docker and wireguard are you bringing to the table. On that note: why docker?

Further - you are paywalling remote access… When your platform is utilizing wireguard.

Netbird (one of many examples) doesn’t even do that… What’s the reasoning?

I have more but let’s start there.

Anyone know how to turn the US off and on again to verify we can roll back? I wanna say we might have some corrupted sectors…

It worked on my box!

To be fair a certain security company was in global news for exactly that same send it behavior. Why waste precious resources on multiple instances? Investors hate waste. 😅

This. They provide outstanding insights and the articles they provide alongside the data are quite good.

Strange- the very tone of this thread is suggesting that the HA developers choice in how they distribute their platform is “incorrect” by your assertions. Further you seem to disagree with explanations provided as to why those choices were likely made.

Dismissing those statements and observations do not make them incorrect. Nothing I stated is dramatic: it is an observation and a comment on an increasing trend popping up around several projects. This particular topic and your responses within it align with that trend. My closing statement was directed at that. You are welcome to not like it but resorting to insults is a bit childish.

Honestly I really don’t think I am.

I’ve seen a number of topics over the last few weeks that are framed as this evil developer is doing a sinister thing…. And for what it’s worth I read the “clickbait” and then did my due diligence and followed the links / git responses etc and lo and behold every. single. issue. was stemming from that community.

We aren’t reddit. This isn’t 4chan. If your community is getting cut off because, frankly, it’s being unreasonable… don’t come here looking for a personal army.

It seems to me they chose to provide a platform that vastly simplifies the installation of their software and maintenance of its code from a debugging standpoint. This seems perfectly reasonable. This appears to bother a particular community who feel entitled enough to demand multiple developers cater to their distribution’s needs. Shit needs to stop.

The “messenger” seems to have a lot of bias they are parading around as an objective truth.

From what I’ve read the “white knights” you appear to be referring to are pretty clearly either developers or people with programming experience. To my eye they appear to be pretty level headed and on point in their observations.

But that’s hard…

Agreed. If an operating system I don’t support for my software was redirecting its users with issues to my front door I’d cut them off too if they didn’t want to help. Two way street friends. If they wanted to vilify me over it I’d happily terminate communication with them.

From what I gather here you have a particular flavor of a distribution that does not work with a foss piece of software. This is not uncommon.

Developers have finite time and energy to put into the development of their platform and likely spend that time supporting their existing user base. Just because you took the time to learn esperanto and think it is a superior language does not mean everyone else must cater to your whims.

Based on your statements you seem to “understand” nix… Instead of demanding they cater to your needs: Perhaps you should undertake the burden of forking, modifying the code, and supporting the vast ecosystem of addons then. Surely it would be a trivial matter.

Legally, you do. You may not like it but that’s how it works. The law is about precedent and interpretation.

This is the road that will be traveled first:

What needs to be covered up? Why does it need to be covered up? Naughty bits. There was a time when a woman’s bare leg was sexual and staring at it was, of course, a deviant behavior. Now? Legs for days. Can you take someone to court for looking at your legs? Sure. Will it have a good chance of success? No. What changed? The level of sexuality attached to legs. Extrapolate from here.

My argument isn’t about how it should be. People should be decent. They often aren’t. My statement is about the legal implications of the decision. Breasts either remain sexual which means all naughty bits are on the table or… they aren’t and are legally no different than any other nonsexual thing.

Sure it’s easy until you deal with the fallout. If you legalize it you have acknowledged that a woman’s breasts are not sexual. There is no recourse. The reason this is a tough subject is legally we are saying a woman’s breasts are no different from a man’s and that is a costly statement. Equal? Yes. But it opens a lot of doors and some of them are unquestionably undesirable.

I’m all for a level playing field… but it’s a complex issue. Beyond the basic: “it’s hot out - free the tiddy!” There are some complexities that will arise from the resulting freedom.

Many women who want this still may get uncomfortable if people stare / check them out etc… While it is rude to give anyone a thorough look over - I imagine many women may become deeply offended or uncomfortable if this were to happen. Eyes up here may be expected but it cannot be demanded. Equality is just that.

What about incidental contact? Public transportation, festivals, busy spaces… I have, many times, had someone come in contact with my body in cases like these. If I have exposed skin it is possible it will get touched. Nobody enjoys getting touched or having their space invaded by others but there is a stark difference between this contact and sexual assault. Imagine how some of these occurances will play out from both perspectives.

Like it or not women’s breasts have been sexualized and undoing that is a Herculean task. Regardless of where you stand on the topic there is collateral damage that can occur as a result of something that seems, on the surface, to be a simple change in law. I’m all for the change but everything gets messy in a hurry by just flipping that switch.