Qvest

joined 1 year ago
[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That's fair, but at least they could say something like "you can download our songs for as long as we allow it" and not "you can download your favourite songs and listen to them any time, anywhere" when that is only partially true, since, if someone has a playlist downloaded (still talking about personal experience) and they go offline for a long period of time, they can no longer play the songs and are required to get an internet connection only for spotify to audit and say "yeah you still have a valid subscription, you can still listen offline". It's not truly offline if I have to connect to the internet every once in a while.

Again, it's completely fair, but they could at least tell more than half-truths

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 61 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Not fun is pressing play one day and finding a big chunk of your carefully constructed playlist is "no longer in your library."

this is exceptionally true from my experience with Spotify. I had downloaded a playlist that had a specific song. One day I went to play my locally downloaded playlist only to glance over it and see that the song was unavailable. I had the song downloaded. In my device and it still removed the song. No warnings, no nothing. Ever since, I downloaded everything locally and completely ditched Spotify. Fuck this scummy behaviour

 

Hello privacyguides. I have a question:

Talking strictly about security, how would you rate multi-account-containers for compartmentalizing internet activity? By compartmentalizing, I mean if, for example, I click on link "xyz" on container "a", and this link is somehow capable of accessing account "b" and compromise it. Except I have this account "b" logged in another container. Would the website be able to compromise the account? I know zero-days exist, but in a typical situation, would this extension improve security in this example or not?

Thanks in advance for your time and any answers!

 

Hello Linux people, I need a bit of help. I wanted to leverage the new 545 NVIDIA drivers, but no other OS that I know of has them yet, so I installed Arch Linux using the handy archinstall script. I followed an external guide on how to get NVIDIA cards up and running. This one specifically: https://github.com/korvahannu/arch-nvidia-drivers-installation-guide. And yes, I checked it against the wiki (from what I could understand, the linked guide has no issues). After I rebooted everything went okay. Tested out resource-intesive games and they ran as expected with the proprietary drivers. However (and I don't know if this is a problem related to the drivers), I just tried suspending the KDE Wayland session on my laptop (Forgot to mention that I followed the wiki on how to get nvidia-suspend and nvidia-hibernate set up, and they were set up correctly), but when I tried waking it up, the screen freezes in a black background with only the kde cursor (I cannot move the cursor in this state) so the only option I know of is to forcefully shutdown the system and reboot. I am not very experienced in Linux so I could use some assistance in finding the source of this problem.

Journalctl log:

If there's anything else that would prove useful in debugging this issue, please tell me and I will provide

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah. GNOME does this probably because it's safer and ensures that the packages are downloaded in full before applying updates in an environment that is less likely for something to go wrong (Although I particularly don't know how true this is)

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (19 children)

One thing I give Linux credit for is how it handles updates. Like, yeah, Linux doesn't force updates, that we all know, but I like how at least in the GNOME desktop, there is no "Update and action" button, there is only the shutdown and restart buttons, where if I am to press either, the system will ask me if I want to install updates or not with a nice box to tick the option. Nowhere near as cluttered as it is in the picture.

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And they're big supporters and developers of Linux

Not looking to disagree, but do you have a source on the "developers" part?

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Waste management and environmental concerns are already bad with coal power (even worse than nuclear power, in the sense that nuclear doesn’t launch waste into the air as far as I know, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong)

Although, yes, security has to be higher for nuclear power, but nuclear is not as bad as most people think

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Yes. Opening PDFs might be safer on Linux, but general internet security and practice goes a long way, too. Using a content-blocker like uBlock Origin on Firefox can greatly reduce attack surface on both Linux and Windows as well

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

researchers from security firm Trend Micro found an encrypted binary file on a server known to be used by a group they had been tracking since 2021

Sounds like it targets servers specifically, so desktop users should be safe

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago (5 children)

No.

By installing software only from trusted sources (default repositories from your distribution are the safest software you will ever install on linux)

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't say it's a complete disservice. They made the Steam Deck. And while it's just a fancy GUI (Steam in Game Mode or whatever it's called), that's exactly what people need for it to become mainstream. Besides, if it wasn't for Valve's Proton and Wine, I wouldn't be using Linux as a daily driver today And they (as far as I know, take this with a grain of salt) pioneered the Handheld gaming space (and before you say Nintendo or PSP. They were different than the Steam Deck or the ROG Ally)

 

Since I haven't seen a post about this, I decided to post this. Sorry in advance if this is a duplicate

 

Hey y'all! First time trying to self-host something, I started with a local Nextcloud instance for me and my family to use. I just wanted to make sure that no outsiders can enter the instance (access it or its files) through a browser on another connection.

I don't have a DNS server so we access it through its IP address. The connection is unencrypted (I don't know if this is a problem on a local instance, but from what I've read, I need a local DNS server to encrypt it, as well as to be able to set a domain (?) name (I don't really know if it's a domain name, but I'm referring to the website name, for instance google.com). I don't think leaving it as it is (unencrypted, no domain name, only accessible through IP) will be problematic. Could other people access the server remotely with this setting? By remotely, I mean from far away. I tried out Nextcloud's own Security Scan and it returns:

Scan failed! The scan for the specified domain failed. Either no Nextcloud or ownCloud can be found there or you tried to scan too many servers.

I'm guessing this is a good thing for what I'm trying to achieve?

for reference, the tutorial I've used is this one under Linux Mint