Caddy is an alternative web server easy to configure and use.
Been using GNU/Linux and assorted FLOSS tools for about a decade. Of course, I want others to start using this wonderful software, but I noticed that it's pretty hard. What I try to do is tell people: "Hey, this is free (as in beer) and fun, check it out some time." What I don't try to do is take the religious/moral position: "What you're doing is sinful and wrong, only FLOSS can redeem us at this point. Say no to Micro$ucks!".
Most of my victories have been that friend or acquaintance with a laptop that did not like the new version of Windows: "Hey, take a backup and let me borrow it for a few days, you have nothing to lose!". I have never, ever, ever had a positive reaction to moralizing stuff.
Thoughts?submitted by /u/1337_n00b
FOSSforce: Considering that System76 chose to unveil its new design plans to The Linux Gamer, we can't help but wonder if a System76 mean Steam Machine isn't in the works.
Mozilla - has one big problem!
The issue is that they are always in attack mode and are willing to fight! They are doing that since day one. Mozilla tried to fight against IE and have been able to break it's dominance a bit with useful and cool features.
Then Chrome arrived. Moz tried the same strategy too, but it was not working as it used to work in the past. So they have been thinking about something else. Beat them with their own weapon. If Mozilla would walk away from their attack mode and would accept things as they are, it would not have ended like that. But their latest plans/goals are also a total failure. So why still going on with that. Moz had a nice market share during Firefox until version 20 or something like that. Enough to prove towards Google that they are not winning to 100%. But even that was not enough for them. Moz wanted to become number one, no matter what it has to be done to reach that goal. For this they are sacrificing user's interests.
History has showed it that a holy war never will lead to success. We had a believe driven crusade which failed. We had a war driven crusade which failed (luckily). What makes Mozilla believe that they could win their crusade?
Something more worth to be mentioned:
The topic opener from the Mozilla blog officially admits it more or less: Our beloved UI customization is almost not existing anymore.
Mozilla often talks about a security or Maintenance to be a reason but it not the biggest. The thing is simple users present the biggest part of the market share. Chrome owns the largest percentage of the market share.
So what do companies do which try to gather a large part of that users too? They restrict and remove features from which they know that simple users are not going to accept them and refusing to use a browser with such features inside.
Opera has done it. Even Microsoft has done it partly with Edge - even if they can't remove much features as they do not had many in the first place. Everyone adopts that new simplicity trend because big companies show that they earn that way money and gather large influence. Even an Open Source company like Mozilla is not willing to ignore that.
Ask a simple user if he would use a software with tons of customization or accessibility features inside. The answer is a clear no-brainer. And what are you doing then to gather that users? Remove features and restrict the feature set until a point that these users switch over.
Saved money is a nice side effect, but not the main reason of all that. Like it or not, we experience a 180 degree shift of priorities. And in most cases advanced users are the one's who lose everything as it is not possible to earn enough with users like us today.submitted by /u/Inniesta
I have been thinking for a while about approaches to increase security on the desktop.
The main problem I see is that network-facing programs, such as web browser and email clients process tons of untrusted data, and any security flaw in them (for example, a buffer overflow) provides access to all user data. Let's assume we have data here that we want to keep confidential.
For the web browser, there is a relatively simple solution: Run it in virtualbox or another VM. If the VM has little or no user-specific configuration, this also helps against tracking and fingerprinting.
For the email client, this is more complex. An approach I have been experimenting with is SELinux, but while it is without doubt good for servers, it looks, so far, too complicated for normal desktop usage.
Another approach is using a different account and user id for the email client, and possibly use sudo / gksudo to launch it. One can put shared data into a special directory and give it permissions to a group to which both normal and restricted user id belong to.
That works, but becomes a bit tedious after a while. I think one of the main disadvantages is that to be effective, one has to keep up a strict separation of domains. Now let's assume that you receive an invoice, need to make a online bank transfer to a account number you got in the invoice, and want to send a job application - that means you need to cross domains all the time. And to keep it effective, you need to follow it consequently. (This is true for many risk mitigation strategies: For example, in traffic, there is far less security if you stop at 99 red lights, and run over number 100.) Another aspect - if I receive an invoice as a PDF and the email client launches the PDF viewer, this PDF is still untrusted data but the viewer is another program which might also need access to documents I prepare.
A more comfortable approach could be to use AppArmor profiles to limit the capabilities of the different client programs. I found that AppArmor, which was introduced for Ubuntu, is now available on Debian as well. However, I haven't used that so far. my question is how well does that work, does it really help, which approaches lead to minimum hassle and maximum effectiveness?submitted by /u/BlackSalamandra