JubilantJaguar

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago

Would be interested in an intelligent rebuttal to this seemingly decent argument, if anyone has one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Another option: encrypt a sparse file rather than a disk volume. Mount the file to local filesystem and open and close it there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Fair enough!

So you would suggest to get bigger and bigger storages?

Personally I would suggest never recording video. We did fine without it for aeons and photos are plenty good enough. If you can still to this rule you will never have a single problem of bandwidth or storage ever again. Of course I understand that this is an outrageous and unthinkable idea for many people these days, but that is my suggestion.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The local-plus-remote strategy is fine for any real-world scenario. Make sure that at least one of the replicas is a one-way backup (i.e., no possibility of mirroring a deletion). That way you can increment it with zero risk.

And now for some philosophy. Your files are important, sure, but ask yourself how many times you have actually looked at them in the last year or decade. There's a good chance it's zero. Everything in the world will disappear and be forgotten, including your files and indeed you. If the worst happens and you lose it all, you will likely get over it just fine and move on. Personally, this rather obvious realization has helped me to stress less about backup strategy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

Amusing. This conundrum, exactly as described, has also been bothering me, on and off, for years. Having tried a bunch of solutions, I have recently settled on one that I'm quite pleased with.

A bumbag. AKA waist pack. (AKA another name which sounds both comical and vulgar to British ears.)

You're not gonna look cool but it works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Amazing! Great find.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

battle between Ubuntu and Fedora with their derivative

Agreed in general. Except that Ubuntu is itself a derivative, of Debian. Technically it's Debian that's the peer of Fedora.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

XDG Desktop Portals as a standardised way for applications to access resources that are outside of the sandbox

It is designed to enable desktop applications to take full advantage of snap packaging

So all this only affects Snap apps, is that correct?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Indeed. The moral purity issue has always been the Achilles heel of progressive politics. It makes compromise hard and it drives heretics - i.e. the people whose votes you need - crazy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

This is great news! Debian is back in contention for me.

Recently Debian developer Helmut Grohne initiated the Debian development discussion around removing more packages from the unstable archive. He argued in favor of more aggressively removing unmaintained packages from the archive given the QA-related costs, additional work/complexities when dealing with major fundamental changes to Debian, and other non-trivial costs

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 days ago

Useful insight, thanks. And somewhat reassuring.

I have no intention of using Arch (btw). I'm the kind of insufferable idealist who wants to use Debian for the high-minded principle of it. I consider Arch a toy distro for gamers. :)

 

Banks, email providers, booking sites, e-commerce, basically anything where money is involved, it's always the same experience. If you use the Android or iOS app, you stayed signed in indefinitely. If you use a web browser, you get signed out and asked to re-authenticate constantly - and often you have to do it painfully using a 2FA factor.

For either of my banks, if I use their crappy Android app all I have to do is input a short PIN to get access. But in Firefox I also get signed out after about 10 minutes without interaction and have to enter full credentials again to get back in - and, naturally, they conceal the user ID field from the login manager to be extra annoying.

For a couple of other services (also involving money) it's 2FA all the way. Literally no means of staying signed in on a desktop browser more than a single session - presumably defined as 30 minutes or whatever. Haven't tried their own crappy mobile apps but I doubt very much it is such a bad experience.

Who else is being driven crazy by this? How is there any technical justification for this discrimination? Browsers store login tokens just like blackbox spyware on Android-iOS, there is nothing to stop you staying signed in indefinitely. The standard justification seems to be that web browsers are less secure than mobile apps - is there any merit at all to this argument?

Or is all this just a blatant scam to push people to install privacy-destroying spyware apps on privacy-destroying spyware OSs, thus helping to further undermine the most privacy-respecting software platform we have: the web.

If so, could a legal challenge be mounted using the latest EU rules? Maybe it's time for Open Web Advocacy to get on the case.

Thoughts appreciated.

view more: next ›