Mordikan

I never really got their marketing campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNsKvZo6MDs

Yeah, if the student devices are locked down its done so per policy. Creating VMs which allow students to bypass that policy is going to potentially get you into trouble with administration. IT could maybe setup those students with Citrix Workspaces or something similar they support to achieve that without having to throw student restrictions out the window.

Sorry, I was trying to find parts for my daughter’s machine while doing this (cheap Minecraft build). I corrected my comment.

I’ve used smollm2:135m for projects in DBeaver building larger queries. The box it runs on is Intel HD 530 graphics with an old i5-6500T processor. Doesn’t seem to really stress the CPU.

UPDATE: I apologize to the downvoter for not masochistically wanting to build a 1000 line bulk insert statement by hand.

Tailscale has the funnel command which exposes services like how you describe, but that’s off the table.

Not quite sure I understand your layout, but if these are separate VPNs, you could run one from the server with a port forward (guessing that’s not through Mullvad as they don’t offer forwards any longer - to my knowledge) and then setup the general VPN on your router perhaps so you don’t have to change ip routes for the whole network. You would still probably need to setup an ip route specific to the server VPN traffic on the router at that point, but that would probably be less work.

If this all being done from the same device then you would need to separate them out by IP routes.

The printers require AD authentication to print but no prompt? Is Kerberos setup correctly for CUPS?

Mundane tasks weren’t really the focus. This was a debate between Redhat and the Linux old guard where the points were all based on the extremes. They follow different ideas on how tools should work, though. Init systems focus on doing one or few things but doing them very well (the traditional UNIX approach). Systemd is a suite of many moving parts to accomplish a whole range of tasks (more modern). Init is mostly just bootstrap and services, but systemd is that plus networking, plus user sessions, plus logging, etc etc. More moving parts means increased complexity and more chance for failure. Systemd as a suite then becomes a potential single point failure where init based systems would not be. Scripting for either can be involved, but generally speaking init is/was easier to write things for.

I think most users today focus on Redhat’s control and not putting too much faith in one setup for diversity’s sake rather than the other points, but the original debate really was a philosophically based one. There isn’t a right or wrong on these, but some really interesting history.

I think for those people it boils down to systemd being an init system that does more than an init system maybe should. Combine that with it being more complicated to work with and with Redhat not really being that open to feedback.

Honestly, most of your selling points while completely valid don’t matter in this case I think. The problem is that is a repair business doing work for non-technical people and those are technical selling points. For example, my wife is allergic to tech. She wouldn’t care about dual-booting or telemetry. She just wants the simplest possible solution that she doesn’t have to think about. She’s bored having to listen to me talk about projects/work and while she has to have a PC for daily life, that doesn’t mean she wants to have to have it. She just needs it and needs it to be easy.

The biggest selling points to her would be:

1. It just works
2. She doesn’t have to relearn things (meaning the layout and where to click on things)
3. It runs her stuff (literally all browser based applications)
4. Her files and pictures are there

That’s it. I think the biggest positive sell to repair shop users would be “its just like Windows”. They don’t need it to be better, they just need it to be the same.

Ok, this is your summarized argument: Accel is going to gut the company and run it into the ground because that’s what they do, but they haven’t ever done that, but they could, so they will, so that’s the same as doing it, although they haven’t, but it will happen in the end because that’s what they do, but they don’t.

Its not a strawman if what you say is in fact a weakly constructed idea. Its just a weakly constructed idea then. Its nothing but vague generalizations and “what ifs” you posted. Let me just put it this way: evidence or stfu.

ME: So, even if Accel doesn’t do that, which they haven’t done that, they are still guilty of doing that.

YOU: Not what I said.

YOU: What you’re apparently not getting is that even if it’s not happening right now, it will in the end.

So… even if Accel doesn’t do that, which they haven’t done that, they are still guilty of doing that. You have no argument, just strong feelings.

Is there an actual example you can provide of Accel doing that

So… if all VC money does, then you can provide an example of Accel doing this… right? So, go ahead and do that now.

So, even if Accel doesn’t do that, which they haven’t done that, they are still guilty of doing that. Ok, yeah. That’s some solid irrefutable logic you got going there. I think I’ll go back to arguing this with commenters who are a little less emotional and more grounded in real world points about the topic.

deleted by creator

Is there an actual example you can provide of Accel doing that or is this more an emotionally driven statement you have?

Historically, Accel has never pushed acquisition. On the contrary, they do the opposite. Its why they VC fund over 300 companies, but you’ve never heard of them. That’s not to say they couldn’t, but they haven’t ever acted in that manner previously so logically it would be safe to assume that trend continues with Tailscale. I think that’s important here: its not about ability its about intent. If as a organization you give funding to another organization (even non-profits) you exercise at least some control over them as they are dependent on that money to function. This is actually a point other commenters have made in regards to Headscale. Headscale is maintained by a Tailscale employee. As they fund him personally, they can exercise some control over him as he depends on that money/employment. Again, even their comments circle back to ability vs intent. Tailscale could influence their employee, but would they? That’s where a lot of the VC argument goes. Its just speculation as what a group could do, not what they would do.

Does The Linux Foundation have complete control over Linux?

You’re the one who said it, though.

Tailscale builds on top of the Wireguard protocol, LF builds on top of (through grants/scholarships) the Linux OS. You can’t argue that it doesn’t matter that LF doesn’t have control over the underlying technology, but then argue that it does matter in Tailscale’s cause.

Firstly, I’m not trying to start a flame war with commenters, I genuinely just disagree on something and some people are getting a little hot under the collar by it. The Linux Foundation comment I made because ultimately VC touches more than people think. Even its something that isn’t directly tied to VC, that money filters through groups like LF which is a non-profit and most would argue a quite legitimate organization. The point is there really is no separation or clear line of demarcation on what is “good” funding and what is “bad” funding.

Yeah, I think you missed that. Go back through and reread comments please. Thank you.