realitaetsverlust

No

Steam Deck verified is like 90% done towards linux support

It’s not really about working harder. Before, it just wasn’t a justifiable expense investing time into ensuring proton support or even linux support because a sub 1% OS just isn’t “worth” supporting from a financial standpoint. That changed with the steamdeck and because the steamdeck is actually just a small PC with built-in controller, things that profit the deck also profit the linux ecosystem.

Honestly the steam deck was a genius move from valve.

So, first of all, I barely ever had to work with d-bus directly - I used it a few times and it was fine to use.

Without any well-defined standards, a protocol is essentially useless and/or lawless

When I look for “D-Bus Specification”, I get this: https://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html. This LOOKS like a proper documentation of the standard to me.

the general lax nature of how endpoints are intended to be defined … is a significant factor for why many applications are the way they are

I feel like this is the same complaint people have about other things, like PHP for example. They see shitty PHP code (like wordpress) and are like: “Oh my god PHP is such a shitty language because this application is written like shit”. But I don’t blame a language, a framework or a protocol for the failures of the users. I don’t feel like an application that close to the system core has to be absolutely “dummy proof”. At some point, we should just expect that people know what they’re doing, and if they don’t, we should blame them, not the underlying technology.

Honestly 80% of the article is ranting about developer not writing proper documentation or following specs which is not the fault of D-Bus. The only point that I agree with is the lack of security features, but that has never really been a thing back then. Half of the shit that was developed was completely insecure. Not saying that’s a good thing btw. But that can be fixed.

Terraform and Puppet. Not very simple to get into, but extremely powerful and reliable.

How do you notify yourself about the status of a container?

I usually notice if a container or application is down because that usually results in something in my house not working. Sounds stupid, but I’m not hosting a hyper available cluster at home.

Is there a “quick” way to know if a container has healthcheck as a feature.

Check the documentation

Does healthcheck feature simply depend on the developer of each app, or the person building the container?

If the developer adds a healthcheck feature, you should use that. If there is none, you can always build one yourself. If it’s a web app, a simple HTTP request does the trick, just validate the returned HTML - if the status code is 200 and the output contains a certain string, it seems to be up. If it’s not a web app, like a database, a simple SELECT 1 on the database could tell you if it’s reachable or not.

Is it better to simply monitor the http(s) request to each service? (I believe this in my case would make Caddy a single point of failure for this kind of monitor).

If you only run a bunch of web services that you use on demand, monitoring the HTTP requests to each service is more than enough. Caddy being a single point of failure is not a problem because your caddy being dead still results in the service being unusable. And you will immediately know if caddy died or the service behind it because the error message looks different. If the upstream is dead, caddy returns a 502, if caddy is dead, you’ll get a “Connection timed out”

I can assure you, you will never need them.

I got a USB stick with ventoy installed, got a gparted and an arch linux iso on that thing, I do use those regularly.

That user agent would make them easily identifiable and therefore blockable. It’s more likely that they are trying to hide as a legitimate user.

I would expect AI scrapers to fake a windows user-agent tbh.

That isn’t entirely true. While a phone without a SIM can still listen to broadcasts, it never registers as a subscriber because It’s missing a IMSI. So no, without a SIM you are indeed invisible to carriers. It’s a bit like screaming into the woods - someone might hear you if you do that, but if he doesn’t scream back, you have no idea he’s there.

The only exception to this if you’re actively calling emergency services - in that case, your phone will attempt an emergency attach to any network it can find, which is the point where the carrier of that network could see your IMEI. However, apart from that, you are indeed completely invisible without a SIM card.

Not having a SIM-Card in your phone is like having a tank without a main gun - it drives, but it can’t really do what it’s supposed to do. I don’t think that it’s a good idea. Also, not having a SIM-Card doesn’t make you invisible - only airplane mode really does that. Without some kind of network connectivity, you have an expensive, glorified brick that can make photos, play games and lets you listen to offline music.

Also, I’m wondering what exactly you’re trying to achive. Get a private OS like graphene, don’t install any google services, have anti-tracking protection installed into the browser (or use a safe and sane browser by default) and you’re good.

Not having a SIM doesn’t do anything for you except hiding from your carrier, however, if your threat model involves you being worried by being tracked by your carrier (and by extension, the feds), you’re in really hot water already and you’re probably better off with detaching yourself from the modern world.