486

With spinning turbines, the issue is, that you need to maintain a constant speed of the turbine at all times. That rotation speed directly correlates with the mains frequency of the attached generator. That's either 50 or 60 Hz depending on where you live. If the load increases the frequency drops and the turbine speed decreases, when the load decreases, the opposite happens. The people maintaining the grid have to make sure load and supply are in balance to keep the frequency stable and the trubines within their operating parameters.

Compared to that, solar panels have none of these constraints. For one, they output DC voltage not AC, and secondly they don't mind at all when there is no or very little load. The DC voltage is electronically converted to AC by an inverter. Such an inverter synchronizes its frequency with the frequency of the power grid. So you can easily simply disconnect solar panels when there is too little demand without any issue. You can't easily do the same with a power plant with a turbine. If you were to remove the load from a turbine, you could actually destroy it, if you are not very careful.

While that is true for power plants with spinning turbines, it isn't true for solar power. There is no issue at all when you don't consume all the energy that a solar panel could produce.

MW/h

There is MW which is a unit of power and then there is MWh which is a unit of energy, but what is MW/h supposed to mean?

How would ZFS snapshots help in a situation like this, where you have accidentally formatted your drive?

Unless you require the dynamic features of Wordpress, you could have a look at some of the static site generators out there (such as Hugo). Having a static site would reduce the attack surface considerably. Also due to the shenanigans happening with Wordpress at the moment, I would be weary of using it.

About SSL, what others have already mentioned, SSL certs are available for free these days, thanks to letsencrypt.

Why? Even 1080p is more than what is usually needed for such a KVM solution. It is not like this is meant for doing remote work on a computer or anything like that.

It lets you remotely control a server as if you were sitting in front of a screen and keyboard directly attached to it.

I was really sceptical of the CTOs first response, but this does actually seem to be genuinely good news.

The head of BitWarden has come out and stated the SDK being required to compile BitWarden was a mistake, however, and if this proves to be true (which I have no reason to doubt) then I see no reason why any of this is an issue.

I don't see why this should make any difference at all. Sure, I get why he is are saying they are going to fix it - he thinks that this gets them in compliance with the GPLv3. But from a practical point of view there is no difference at all. The software is useless without that SDK part. Even if it does indeed get them in the clear from a legal point of view (which I am not convinced that it actually does), it is still a crappy situation.

I think, it would look way less shady, if they said they are going fully source-available and not pretend that they are keeping the client open source. I would still dislike that, of course. At least that wouldn't have eroded the trust in them as much as it did for me.

Proprietary is a strong word IMO. Here’s the repo, it’s not FOSS, but it is source available.

Yeah, that's what I meant by "proprietary". I guess having the source to look at is better than nothing, but it still leaves me uneasy. Their license lets them do anything they want (ignoring that - as it stands - their license is void due to the linkage with GPLv3 code, but they said they want to fix that). I have no idea what their plan is. I don't think it is in their best interest to go the route they appear to be going. Having truly open source clients seems to be a selling point for quite a few customers. But what do I know…

Keyguard isn't open source. Have a look at their license. It just says "All rights reserved".

I really hope that this is actually the case, but I am not very optimistic. This doesn't seem to be a mistake. They intentionally move functionality of their clients to their proprietary SDK library. The Bitwarden person stated this in the Github issue and you can also check the commit history. Making that library a build-time dependency might actually have been a mistake. That does not change the fact, that the clients are no longer useful without that proprietary library going forward. Core functionality has been move to that lib. I really don't care if they talk to that library via some protocol or have it linked at build time. I wouldn't consider this open source, even if that client wrapper that talks to that library technically is still licensed under GPLv3.