486

joined 1 year ago
[–] 486@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Actually AMDs mobile parts are pretty good at idle power consumption and so are their desktop APUs. Their normal CPUs, which use the chiplet design are rather poor when it comes to idle power consumption. Intel isn't really any better when compared to the monolithic parts at idle and Intel CPUs have horrible power consumption under load. Their newest CPUs are better when it comes to efficiency than 13th and 14th gen CPU, bus still don't match or even exceed AMD.

[–] 486@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] 486@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] 486@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] 486@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] 486@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] 486@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] 486@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] 486@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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…

[–] 486@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

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

[–] 486@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

[–] 486@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Maybe you want to read the comment by kspearrin in that Github issue again. They are clearly moving away from open source. He explicitly states that they are in the process of moving more code to their proprietary "SDK" library.

 

Bitwarden introduced a non-free dependency to their clients. The Bitwarden CTO tried to frame this as a bug but his explanation does not really make it any less concerning.

Perhaps it is time for alternative Bitwarden-compatible clients. An open source client that's not based on Electron would be nice. Or move to something else entirely? Are there any other client-server open source password managers?

view more: next ›