alt

joined 2 years ago
[–] alt@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

Most distros are somewhat equal when it comes to privacy, anonymity and security; with the likes of Fedora and openSUSE known for taking it more seriously out of the box than the other 'big bois', while some smaller distros like Kicksecure are known for their best-in-class^[1]^ hardening that they offer by default.

As for NixOS, it's really its own thing (together with Guix), and thus very different from any other distros. If you conquer it, you would be delightfully met by a system that enables you to do things unheard of in other distros. However, the learning curve is very steep. And perhaps even hardening it to the level that Fedora or openSUSE provide by default might not be trivial.


  1. Qubes OS is technically not a Linux distro. But it's worth mentioning as one generally tends to run Linux within a qube (read: VM), and in regards to security and privacy; Qubes OS is simply unmatched, period.
[–] alt@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

Not much to say regarding their first paragraph.

As for their second paragraph, perhaps they are rightfully sceptical regarding Privacy Guides. The body of topics they try to cover is substantial, though. And if TheAnonymouseJoker or whosoever disagrees with them, then they're free to challenge their views.

Privacy Guides isn't any kind of Gospel or whatsoever that you'd have to agree with in its entirety. I do believe, however, that they've done a tremendous job at offering a one-stop shop for those that are conscious regarding their security and privacy. Everyone is free to choose and pick whatever they like from there or not.

I would love to hear about other resources that do a similarly great job at providing at least decent information when it comes to security and privacy; FWIW thenewoil.org exists, however I don't recall any VPN overview/guide/recommendations from them.

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

It's the same folk, basically. TheAnonymouseJoker or whosoever is free to have their own opinions. Fact is that Privacy Guides is an open community that allows the discussion of these topics. If anyone doesn't like their takes, they can either head to their Github page or to their own platform for a dialogue on the matter.

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Link to r/VPNTorrents' recommendations.

TL;DR: Only AirVPN and ProtonVPN are recommended. While, IVPN and Mullvad used to be until they discontinued port-forwarding; which makes them unviable for torrenting.

Link that provides Privacy Guides' opinion on AirVPN. It's basically rejected because there have been no audits.

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

a few commenters pointed out that the highest rated VPN providers in this table just happen to be the ones that advertise most aggressively and are well-known for buying positive reviews from tech blogs, which are pretty clearly designed to be misleading

Exactly. This is unfortunately common practice, so this breakdown can be dismissed as they're obviously biased due to monetary motivations.

Consider to read Privacy Guides' take on the matter instead.

(Perhaps personal) TL;DR would be that Mullvad VPN in combination with Mullvad Browser offers the most private internet browsing experience for people who don't desire to connect to the Tor Network. Furthermore, Proton offers a suite of privacy-friendly services for mail, drive, password manager etc. Therefore, for the sake of trusting the least amount of parties for these services (at the cost of putting all eggs in one basket), one might consider Proton VPN instead; additionally it includes a free tier and some support to port forwarding (read: allows the use of torrent applications).

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Again an association is made between butt plugs and Arch users. I wonder if moving forward showing a collection of butt plugs will become the next "I use Arch, btw".

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Couple of things that might have tampered your experience:

  • Nvidia. This should come to no one as a surprise, but unfortunately the experience still leaves a lot to desire. Unfortunately, even changing to Nobara didn't help you out there. If you're still dead set on Fedora, I would recommend the Nvidia Images of uBlue which are also mentioned in the Troubleshooting part of Fedora's documentation.
  • Using Fedora as a new user. Before people start shitting on me, I'm a proud Fedora user and it has been my daily driver ever since the day I've switched to Linux. But -like Debian- Fedora's strict stance on FOSS requires one to take additional steps during initial setup/configuration after installation. The aforementioned images from uBlue (once again) help to solve that.
  • I assume you just did the thing on Windows and straight up downloaded VLC off the internet and thought it would work out like that. I wonder if you do the same on your Android/iOS/macOS device. If I'm mistaken, then please feel free to skip the rest of this paragraph. If not, then please consider to read on. So, while it is possible to download software directly off the internet through your browser, this is in 99% of the cases simply inferior to grabbing your software the intended way; through the installed package manager(s). On Fedora, that would have been dnf and/or flatpak. As VLC isn't even found in Fedora's repos (though it is found in RPM Fusion's repos), your best bet would have been installing it as a flatpak. Which in this case, could have been through the built-in 'storefront' with a GUI (it's called Software on GNOME) or through the terminal with the flatpak install org.videolan.VLC -y command.
  • Regarding Media Server, I simply have no experience setting that up. Therefore I hope that others could chime in to offer their support.

but y’all are dirty liars. Linux is still bullshit and has been since I first installed it over 20 years ago. What the hell has the community even accomplished if it still sucks this much dick to use?

This doesn't help your cause. Please refrain from saying such things in the future.


Edit: I just noticed this thread. It might simply be the case that Fedora 39 isn't playing nice (yet). Consider installing Fedora 38 for the time being instead.

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't know if it even works, but have you considered relying on their Stealth protocol? While its absence on Linux ~(and~ ~Windows)~ means that you might not even be able to make use of it in the first place, I'm still interested to know if it makes any difference.

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Yup, it's absolutely lovely. Did you experiment with a custom home directory for your distrobox yet?

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Thank you for reporting back! Much appreciated!

So it turns out, I cannot use my NVIDIA card using distrobox. I guess it only works with AMD?

Interesting. Unfortunately, I don't own an Nvidia device. Therefore, I can't tackle it myself. Distrobox should allow the use of Nvidia, but I'm unaware if this applies to the bazzite-arch container as well. The picture you shared and the link to its FAQ-page (found below) do suggest otherwise, unfortunately...

I was wondering if distrobox would somehow allow better performance

FWIW, I've always experienced better performance inside the bazzite-arch distrobox container, at least compared to Flatpak*.

I see that this image is used a lot on Steam Deck, which I also don’t understand why (as opposed to having everything native).

Because the ~~distro~~ image it's used in conjunction with, Bazzite, is Fedora-based, while Steam OS is based on Arch. Bazzite is Fedora-based in the first place, because Arch doesn't officially have any plans for 'immutable' distros yet. As for the remaining distros, only Fedora and NixOS (see Jovian-NixOS) have a sufficiently mature and suitable platform at this point in time.

maybe I am missing some graphical dependencies

This happens way more often than you might expect. Even the so-called 'toolbox' containers from Distrobox miss a lot of packages required to support software graphically. Consider running it inside a terminal and pay attention to error codes etc; those might/should help you resolve the issue. Sometimes it helps to explicitly use the -v or --verbose option to ensure that the program actually communicates what's happening.

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

In terms of privacy, I believe Windows collects a ton of data even if all telemetry is disabled; granted this is an older article, so it might have changed since*.

Your best option is probably running Windows inside a qube in Qubes OS and ensuring that the qube doesn't have direct access to internet. But, at that point, why not consider switching to Linux instead? Because, you'd have to run at least another qube (with either Linux or *BSD on it) to grab the files off the internet from in the first place.


EDIT: lol, I just noticed it said "window" in the post and not "Windows". I thought the mentions of "blackout curtains" and "storm shutters" was OP either making a joke or some reference I didn't get. LMFAO, I didn't even notice the "Thank me in advance". Guess I should probably go to sleep after this. Good shit-post OP!

 

I'm especially concerned about it being somehow broken, unwieldy, insecure or privacy-invasive.

Case in point; at times I have to rely on a Chromium-based browser if a website decides to misbehave on a Firefox-based browser. Out of the available options I gravitate towards Brave as it seems like the least bad out of the bunch.

Unfortunately, their RPM-package leaves a lot to be desired and has multiple times just been awful to deal with. So much so that I have been using another Chromium-based browser instead that's available directly from my distro's repos. But..., I would still switch to Brave in an instant if Brave was found in my distro's repos. A quick search on repology.org reveals that an up-to-date Brave is packaged in the AUR (unsurprisingly), Manjaro and Homebrew. I don't feel like changing distros for the sake of a single program, but adding Homebrew to my arsenal of universal package managers doesn't sound that bad. But, not all universal package managers are created equal, therefore I was interested to know how Homebrew fares compared to the others and if it handles the packaging of the browser without blemishing the capabilities of the browser's sandbox.


P.S. I expect people to recommend me Distrobox instead. Don't worry, I have been a staunch user of Distrobox for quite a while now. I have also run Brave through an Arch-distrobox in the past. But due to some concerns I've had, I chose to discontinue this. Btw, its Flatpak package ain't bad either. But unfortunately it's not official, so I choose to not make use of it for that reason.

view more: next ›