SpaceCadet

joined 1 year ago
[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah I remember those early days. KDE had a 1.0 version out in the late 90s, which was perfectly usable as a standalone desktop environment, while at the same time Gnome was little more than a panel with a foot. Early Gnome was an unholy mess and remained so until the late 2.x versions in the mid 2000s. Like how many window managers and file managers did they go through? I believe they even had Enlightenment as the default window manager for a while, and then there was that weird Ximian desktop phase.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Double clicking works for 99% of file types

You're completely missing the point.

Not sure what your point is here

The point is that when the double click magic doesn't work for one reason or another, for example because the administrator disabled this feature with a group policy or because the file associations got messed up, the tech illiterate person does not know what to do because they don't grasp the underlying concept.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Administrators can disable this, so I think the larger point is: if a tech literate person receives a zip file, they understand that it is in fact a compressed archive that can contain one or more files and directories, and that you need an archive tool to extract the contents, whereas a tech illiterate person doesn't understand this and expects it to just be handled magically when they double click on it and are stumped when that doesn't work.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’ve no problem with paying for good services

Exactly. It used to be that netflix was all you needed to get most quality content, and it was a fair deal for customers: you pay a reasonable monthly amount, and you and your family gets convenient access to most streamable movies and TV series.

Now that quality content is spread out and locked out over half a dozen other streaming services, and subscribing to them all is not just a hassle but also incredibly bad value compared to the original offer.

In a healthy competitive environment, you would expect companies to counter reduced value by increasing customer value in other ways or by reducing prices, but instead we got price hikes, lots of low quality filler content, crack downs on password sharing, advertising, various unpopular UI changes and other service reductions decreasing value even further.

To solve this, I think the content producers and streaming services should be split up, because right now they're not really competitors in a true sence but small monopolies who each clutch the keys to their own little franchises. It should be noted for example that music streaming works a lot better: there are various competitors that each hold a viable content library on their own, so you don't need more than one music streaming service. IMO that's because Spotify, Tidal, YT Music, etc. are merely distributors and not the actual producers.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You can use the wildcard domain

Yeah the problem was more that this machine is running on a network where I don't really control the DNS. That is to say, there's a shitty ISP router with DHCP and automatic dynamic DNS baked in, but no way to add additional manual entries for vhosts.

I thought about screwing with the /etc/hosts file to get around it but what I ended up doing instead is installing a pihole docker for DNS (something I had been contemplating anyway), pointing it to the router's DNS, so every local DNS name still resolves, and then added manual entries for the vhosts.

Another issue I didn't really want to deal with was regenerating the TLS certificate for the nginx server to make it valid for every vhost, but I just bit through that bullet.

 

So I have a webserver running nginx, and I want to use it as a reverse proxy to access web applications running elsewhere. I know this is a pretty standard use case, and that the traditional approach is to use virtual hosts to proxy the different apps.

Like, normally you would do something like:

I am familiar with this approach, and know how to set it up.

In this case, there is a catch though. For reasons that I can't get into here, I can't use virtual hosts, and everything should be hosted in the same webserver.something domain. So I thought I would use a subpath to host each app.

What I want to do is this basically:

In my nginx config file I have something like this:

upstream app1 {
  server app1.host:3000;
}

server {
    ...
    location /app1 {
        proxy_pass http://app1/;
    }
    ...
}

This works to the extent that all requests going to /app1/* get forwarded to the correct application host. The issue though is that the application itself uses absolute paths to reference some resources. For example, app1 will try to reference a resource like /_app/something/something.js, which of course produces a 404 error.

I suppose that for this particular error I could map /_app/ to the app1 application host with another location statement, but that seems dirty to me and I don't like it. First off it could quickly become a game of whack-a-mole, trying to get all the absolute paths remapped, and secondly it could easily lead to conflicts if other applications use that absolute path too.

So I guess my question is: is there a way to do this cleanly, and dynamically rewrite those absolute paths per app?

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Is it really that bad if kids see a bit of porn? Like really? I grew up before the internet, but even in my day porn mags and VHS tapes got passed around when I was a teenager. Kids are always going to be curious.

Even so on the internet there are much worse things than porn that are harmful for the development of children. There are various groups of questionable morality like incels, or other mysogynistic groups, alt right stuff like neonazis, christofascists, climate deniers, ... If I had children, I would be much more concerned about them falling into one of those ideological traps than them seeing some titties. Hell, even TikTok is probably more harmful for giving them a dopamine addiction and an increasingly short attention span.

So to me, it seems a bit weird to single out porn. It feels like a convenient scapegoat for parents who don't want to spend time raising their kids and paying attention to what they are looking at on the internet.