They didn’t specify, so yes, suspicious.

When managed in A/B install partitions by a third party org that layers their own stable/alpha/main versioning over the top? ;P

Hugo can be as simple as installing it, configuring a site with some yaml that points at a really available theme and writing your markdown content.

It gets admittedly more complex if you’re wanting to write your own theme though.

But I think this realistically applies to most all static site generators.

I wonder if they’ll replicate the feature where a strange voice whispers your name (amongst other odd sounds) if you’re playing in the early hours.

Scared the crap out of me when that happened.

Edit. Evidence https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6529 to show I’m not mad.

It’s the multiple volumes that are throwing it.

You want to mount the drive at /media/HDD1:/media or something like that and configure Radarr to use /media/movies and /media/downloads as it’s storage locations.

Hardlinks only work on the same volume, which technically they are, but the environment inside the container has no way of knowing that.

This is a 2 and a half (almost) year old article. I figured Tim’s thoughts on this were common knowledge at this point?

I’ve not used dockge so it may be great but at least for this case portainer puts all the stack (docker-compose) files on disk. It’s very easy to grab them if the app is unavailable.

I use a single Portainer service to manage 5 servers, 3 local and 2 VPS. I didn’t have to relearn anything beyond my management tool of choice (compose, swarm, k8s etc)

Main page of dashboard

If you long press on a tile (this is kitchen)

Ah, well that is indeed unfortunate and realistically also a bit shit.

ActivityPub implementations generally don’t allow this.

This comment will, when I click ‘Reply’, be sent to your instance (dormi.zone), that instance should then run it’s filter/block checks on it and if it’s happy it will forward it onto the lemmy.ml instance for further disemination amongst the subscribers of the group.

If you were to have blocked me then my reply will appear on my instance only (which is admitedly tiny - at 1 user) and go no further. This kind of falls apart if I were to be on a bigger instance as more people would see the reply.

That said, Lemmy may not be doing that quite right as the whole Groups/Communities thing is sort of an extension of the main protocol. I hope it’s doing it the right way.

There’s a couple of caveats with it, but I think neither are worse than your proposed flow.

1. After putting things in an album you’ll need to manually run the migration job to have immich reorganise into album folders.
2. Images in multiple albums will only be migrated to the path of the newest album.

Immich does support folders?

https://immich.app/docs/administration/storage-template/

With this you can store your photos in whatever structure you want.

There are some justifyable reasons for kicking though. It’s abuse of that process that is causing issues.

I do like the idea of grouping people with high incidents of kick actions though. It wouldn’t be an instant fix but over time the two camps should separate out fairly nicely.

Yes.

Docker will have only exposed container ports if you told it to.

If you used -p 8080:80 (cli) or - 8080:80 (docker-compose) then docker will have dutifully NAT’d those ports through your firewall. You can either not do either of those if it’s a port you don’t want exposed or as @moonpiedumplings@programming.dev says below you can ensure it’s only mapped to localhost (or an otherwise non-public) IP.

Documentation people don’t read

Too bad people don’t read that advice

Sure, I get it, this stuff should be accessible for all. Easy to use with sane defaults and all that. But at the end of the day anyone wanting to using this stuff is exposing potential/actual vulnerabilites to the internet (via the OS, the software stack, the configuration, … ad nauseum), and the management and ultimate responsibility for that falls on their shoulders.

If they’re not doing the absolute minimum of R’ingTFM for something as complex as Docker then what else has been missed?

People expect, that, like most other services, docker binds to ports/addresses behind the firewall

Unless you tell it otherwise that’s exactly what it does. If you don’t bind ports good luck accessing your NAT’d 172.17.0.x:3001 service from the internet. Podman has the exact same functionality.

But… You literally have ports rules in there. Rules that expose ports.

You don’t get to grumble that docker is doing something when you’re telling it to do it

Dockers manipulation of nftables is pretty well defined in their documentation. If you dig deep everything is tagged and natted through to the docker internal networks.

As to the usage of the docker socket that is widely advised against unless you really know what you’re doing.

How’d you find the fit around the top near the triggers. My purple cover just doesn’t seem to clip in right.

So to be clear, you want traffic coming out of your VPS to have a source address that is your home IP?

No that’s not how I read it at all. He wants his VPS to act as a NAT router for email that routes traffic through a wireguard tunnel to the mail server on his home network. His mail server would act as if it was port forwarded using his home router, only it won’t be his home IP, it’ll be the VPS’s

Flash drive hidden under the carpet and connected via a USB extension, holding the decryption keys - threat model is a robber making off with the hard drives and gear, where the data just needs to be useless or inaccessible to others.

This is a pretty clever solution. Most thieves won’t follow a cable that for all intents looks like a network cable, especially if it disappears into a wall plate or something.