NOTE: Scrutiny is a Work-in-Progress and still has some rough edges.
Honestly, at this point i would not recommend the usage of scrutiny, the development was almost ways really slow and the creater does not seem to have kuch interest in the project. There are still standing issues and imho important features missing.
I would look into prometheus+grafana or something of that sort.
That’s simply bad software practice, which was fixed once pointed out. Fact is that if they had done this on purpose, they wouldn’t have changed it and instead, would’ve came up with an excuse to keep it the same way.
This is not correct. While they have removed it from being installed on newer installs/updates, the certificate remains on the system that ran the corresponding version installer/upgrade unless it will be manually removed by the few percent that got the news.
I am talking about it in general. If you trust it or not depends on you. I am just saying that the argument that it is OS or that you can host the server yourself does not automatically mean that it is safe. That applies to any software.
It could install software that transmits the data some time else. Basically something virus would do. The code can be hidden somewhere or loaded from somewhere with simple code.
Those are basic tactics used for years by malware. If just simply monitoring would be enough to protect against malware then we would have way less problems.
You should never run untrusted code or code by untrusted ppl.
You are not running the software cause you do not trust the ppl running it? So you do host the software anyway? Just because it is OS and just because you can run it on your own hardware does not mean you can blindly trust it.
You have clearly not understood what it does. It basically acts as a basic WAF by blocking the access to various paths that are required by the default sharing feature but not by this "proxy".
I mean you have the current image cached on the local server when you use it.
1 GB of RAM for every TB of storage is recommended but you can do with way less for ZFS.
What do you mean with encryption? Does it need to be transport encrypted, end to end encrypted or is encryption at rest (when the server is offline) good enough?
It is not about the drivers, framework has most likely not the capability to develop drivers for their Laptops, it is the manufacturer's job. All framework can do is selecting parts that are already supported by the kernel. Also a driver can take several years until it actually gets into a not rolling release distro like Ubuntu or mint since they do not use the newest kernel.
This collab is more about making sure, that when you install those distros everything works out of the box which is not a given, depending on the compile flags for the kernel they used or what packages are coming installed by default.
Open standards are the first step of a functional transition to an open government. From there Open Source Software can compete against commercial software, once the ppl see that the FOSS offers the same features then the proprietary paid software they can easily switch to it. With open standards they only need to train the users, no data to migrate etc.
Because you pointed 2 programs at the same directory to sync the content with an external directory structure.
In my experience adding an already existing directory structure to a sync program is a bad idea. Create the directory and then move the existing structure into it to be safe or/and at the very least have a backup.
Not having a backup is on you. You got lucky this time.