To those who missed the small disclaimer in the post, 1.0 is not properly released yet. RC4 is out, actual 1.0 release should be “sometime [this] week” (barring new bugs and regressions). See: https://blog.freecad.org/2024/11/14/freecad-1-0-release-candidate-4-is-out/

Edit: Release is out now: https://blog.freecad.org/2024/11/19/freecad-version-1-0-released/

can’t see how this can possibly be a good thing, you know it will mean funding with conditions.

Well, the things they are funding will get funded? How is that a bad thing?!

The conditions range from very broad, like “fix bugs” (curl), over somewhat specific like “improve cross-platform compatibility and the Linux RNG” (Wireguard), to very specific like “create a test-suite and drive development on the Fediverse account migration functionality” (ActivityPub).

You can see more for yourself at https://www.sovereign.tech/tech

All of these seem to be rather tame conditions that are just there to ensure the funds get used in the way they were intended to be used. And I don’t really see how that gives the STF any sort of direct control over these projects, while it gives those projects resources to achieve more than they might have otherwise. There are no long-term funding models that would enable implicit control over these projects.

They could set up an account on one of the larger well established Canadian instances or even better start up their own.

Both of these options have their pros and cons, and I think it is important to explain these well to the council if you want to have any hope of convincing them.

A line of argument that has had some success in Europe is what has become known as “Digital Sovereignty”, basically a fancy term for saying government should control its own infrastructure. So you might want to sell it as an easy way to have a permanent archive of public communication and a method for it that is under their direct control, rather than as a way to find more engagement.

As others have said self hosting has a maintenance and moderation overhead, but this can be lessened by running an instance together with other cities while still retaining most of the benefits of self hosting.

Seeing from the linked cross-post that this is about Port Alberni, and considering that http://portalberni.ca/ returns an empty reply while https://portalberni.ca/ lets me know I have been geoblocked because I’m outside of Canada and the US, I’d say you have an uphill battle before you though. These people made a website (probably paid for it, too), and then killed much of its use by geoblocking most of the world.

Good luck.

android auto

First I heard of this, but since it seems to be just some software that runs on the hardware of car manufacturers it seems rather unlikely. But very theoretically possible, if the car manufacturer was using default process scheduling in a CPU constrained machine and now switches to real-time scheduling in an update. But that was possible for years before this news, the code has just been mainlined to the default kernel now. If the car manufacturer cared about that they would probably have done it already with a patched kernel.

Oh yeah, can’t use the same IP range as your LAN, that will lead to problems. :D Glad it’s fixed.

Out of curiosity, does forwarding work now without the output (-o) command in PostUp?

Like I said in another thread on this post, I’m pretty sure that’s because they are forwarding input but not output in the PostUp rules. Setting a /32 in AllowedIPs works fine for me.

What are you trying to say? That reply also shows AllowedIPs set to a /32 on the server side.

I don’t think that’s what the setting does. Anyway, I have them set to a /32 IP in my server config and it works nonetheless. I get full access to the /24 behind the server from the client.

You have ALL traffic being routed over Wireguard here.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the other way around? All Wireguard traffic is forwarded to the local interface.

I think the problem might be your PostUp/PostDown lines have an in-interface (-i) but are missing an out-interface (-o) for the forwarding. Try this:

PostUp   = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE
PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE

Linux users can’t even agree […] so how am I supposed to pick one with any confidence?

Easy. You make a post like the OP, count the positive mentions of distros in the comments, and bam, you have your distro of choice. It’s called the Linux newbie roulette and works kind of like the magic hat in Harry Potter that sorts you into your house.

Not yet, but you probably will be able to in the future.

Right so WhatsApp and messenger are gatekeepers and they must allow interoperation with who anyone who wants to ie me running my own signal instance?

There are several stipulations on interoperability in the new regulation (Ctrl+F “interop”). To my understanding it is stipulated that they have to make interoperability possible for certain third parties, but how to go about this is not exactly specified on a technical level - meaning the specific way to implement this is left to the gatekeeper. So your Signal server may or may not be able to depending on how exactly they go about this.

They also need to interoperate with signal hence if a works with b and c works with a why wouldn’t b work with c?

No they need to enable interoperability period. Says nothing about Signal (the software) per se. Meta has announced they plan on implementing it based on the Signal protocol (not Signal messenger software, not Signal server software).

Cos if thats hoe it works or if im not allowed to interoperate with WhatsApp or messenger in the first place then this juat seems like its handing the monopoly away from the companies to the government and giving the people fuck all.

To my knowledge the aim of the regulation is exactly that, to allow anybody interoperability with these “core platform services”. The status quo is that the regulations has been announced by the EU, it has gone into effect, and Meta has announced how they will implement interoperability to comply. Once the implementation is available and then found lacking in regard to the regulation it would be up to the affected third party to sue Meta over it.

Not with Signal messenger, the company running it hasn’t been designated as a gatekeeper under the DMA rules. You can see which services will be affected on the Wiki page (only WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger currently).

Signal protocol ≠ Signal messenger

AFAIK you could always have selfhosted a Signal server, you just can’t interact with the “normal” Signal messenger and its network.

No, the DMA has nothing to do with RCS, at least not directly.

Yes, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger were initially just XMPP servers, but have since had proprietary expansions.

In the context of the DMA both of them will be forced to make interoperability with other third-party messengers possible, since Meta has been designated a “gatekeeper” under the new regulation. Meta has announced they plan on doing so via an implementation of the Signal protocol.

There are some provisions in the Digital Markets Act that go in that direction. It only took effect roughly 3 months ago though, so remains to be seen if it works out as intended.

(not actually everything, but I get your hyperbole)

How is it hyperbole? All artificial neural networks have “hallucinations”, no matter their size. What’s your magic way of knowing when that happens?

pet open source projects that no one else ever seems to contribute to, not […] software that holds up civilization

SamePicture.jpeg