Espionage724

Who is everyone? I imagine any serious business is paying for RHEL instead of an unheard of fork, and in my use if I wanted to change from Fedora Server I'd go to CentOS Stream, followed by RH with a free dev license.

I'm getting the vive that some people just want free RHEL, feel entitled to have it, and don't realize that actual RHEL is free within reason (apparently up to 16 simultaneous machines). Nobody remotely concerned about security is running a non-mainstream distro and public-facing services in an age of randomware and crypto.

For Intel, there's DVMT that can be set to different values; with setup_var I can change the memory allocation for Intel UHD 630 from 256MB to 1GB.

I wonder if a BIOS modification could be done to go past the 1GB limit? It sounds like the size modification has to come from the BIOS or VBIOS firmware.

For Intel, some BIOS setting names that control memory usage are "DVMT Pre-Allocated", "DVMT Total Gfx Mem", "Above 4GB MMIO BIOS assignment", and "Aperture Size". If I had a platform I could re-flash the BIOS easily and had any idea what I was doing with a hex editor, I'd see if "DVMT Pre-Allocated" or "DVMT Total Gfx Mem" had an obvious memory limit number, raise it, and check lspci in Linux to see if anything happened.

Uranium, the radioactive stuff? That sounds excellent to be using in glassware!

Looks good to me! I'm covered by most of the exemptions with normal usage.

I'm still salty about Tutanota deleting my (I guess) inactive account. I signed up to both it and ProtonMail around the same time, and also went inactive for about the same time on both. My ProtonMail account still exists today no problem, but unfortunately I went all-in on Tutanota since they didn't have a waiting period back then.

If you're enterprise with more than 16 machines, you can and should probably be paying for RHEL.

What I'm not understanding is why people need to use RHEL and would resort to free random forks of it, instead of just using CentOS Stream or Fedora that are basically the same thing, actually from RH, and 100% free. RHEL is not that special.

So you'd rather use some random fork of RHEL?

Just a flat re-release of an old game on modern devices? That's cool I guess, but there's Quake II VR that's way more interesting :p

Who wouldn't?

Fools who fall into that kind of toxicity likely have money to throw at your products. You want people to buy your product as a for-profit company, right?

Lol I'm sure that person is getting paid more than enough to not be thinking about that stuff

Cruft is left around from caches and old program data all the time. A clean install handles that, and lets me verify my configs are still good and think about way to change them. Clean installs also let me do full-drive SSD trims. I do OS reinstalls maybe 1-2 times a month unless I'm testing something, and can re-deploy my personalized set-up in less than an hour.

I'd rather nuke from orbit and rebuild than duct-tape holes :p If my system became unbootable for some reason, I'd fix it and ideally find out what happened, backup stuff, and reinstall. Best-case, everything is fine (although I'd change distros if it ever broke because of a clearly untested updated). Worst-case, the system becomes unbootable again because of the same issue and I can report it upstream with more confidence.

Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are this controversial :p

16 machines is more devices than I have in my house, and enterprise seems like they can just pay for RHEL. I'm also betting there's not some thorough verification process that would prevent you from running RHEL free on more than 16 machines (seems almost too easy, but just make multiple free accounts per-16 machines? RH I'm sure would be happier to have people running RHEL at all than intentionally seeking out free license violators)

lolwut?

Unless something major changed, you're dropped to a terminal as soon as you boot the install image, and have to either have advanced knowledge on what to do from there, or have the wiki side-by-side on another device. And unless you're taking incredible notes at the same time, good luck replicating the set-up if you need to reinstall.

Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora, and most other mainstream distros at least boot you into a GUI to install.

Heck no; I reinstalled distros multiple times a week while I was distro hopping and Arch got reinstalled once before I quickly realized it didn't offer anything to make that install process worthwhile.

I use Fedora primarily because of SELinux, and apparently Arch doesn't even use a MAC by-default and expects manual-setup.

openSUSE Tumbleweed is a better rolling-release implementation imo and has even been more up-to-date than Arch when it came to some major GNOME, KDE and kernel updates.

I've heard too many horror-stories of major OS upgrades and even service packs back in XP and Vista days.

New distro versions for me equals a clean state to make sure everything goes smoothly :p I have commands and notes that let me re-deploy within an hour on most distros, like these for Fedora: https://wiki.realmofespionage.xyz/distros:fedora_workstation...

It seems easier to just fix my system instead of trying to prevent breaking it :p

I don't know what an accidental change is, but if I want to change something I'm going to change it and likely tear through immutability anyway. I can go back to Windows if I want to be limited in what I can change :p

openSUSE Tumbleweed makes more sense for rolling imo and was even more up-to-date than Arch at times with major DE versions and kernels. And openSUSE like most other mainstream distros doesn't require an encyclopedia to install :p

Fedora is probably the most secure server OS you can get; can't beat SELinux, and nobody else implements it besides Fedora and RHEL.

I personally see no point to Mint since Ubuntu exists, and Mint has had their own share of specific issues one being that Wine didn't work for some months. The rep I got from them in the past was that they mixed their own, Debian, and Ubuntu packages in their default repos that occasionally caused dependency issues. Maybe it's not that bad, but Ubuntu is still around and a lot more supported.

Ubuntu is the distro. It's popular, it looks good (not the boring grey/white Adwaita theme), and can handle multimedia without having to involve any 3rd-party repos. I'd recommend it to beginners today, and I'd probably be using it as a desktop OS still but I like consistency and my home lab is Fedora :p

I have zero interest in Rhino Linux. I don't have issue with Ubuntu's update procedures and trust them to make sure package and distro updates go smoothly for the largest user-base, and I trust openSUSE TW more for rolling since they've been doing it longer. I also don't like the idea of running a fork of a distro that's a fork of another distro :p

Are you sure?

Things I read online say it's free, including https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download

As I understand, the only costs with RHEL include using it across a large number of machines in enterprise, and customer support. Someone using it on a few machines in a home lab should be fine I imagine?

I found YaST to get in my way at times; I particularly remember YaST's Network panel hanging because I had StevenBlack's huge HOSTS file. I do like the network panel though for changing static IPs; I had to do some searching to try to figure out how to do that on Fedora, and ended up using Cockpit instead (not sure how to do it cli).

I'm confused on the differences in repo priority between zypper (oS TW) and dnf (Fedora). Apparently dnf also allows setting repo priority, but I've never had to do it, and packages seem to come from expected repos without having to specify (stuff comes from RPM Fusion if I have those repos added). On TW I had to manually specify repo priority to something other than 99 and set a flag to allow vendor changes to have similar behavior; I like that kind of control but I didn't need to do it on Fedora.

OBS is nice in-concept but I don't like the idea of using it outside of openSUSE. I think Launchpad/PPAs for Ubuntu, Copr for Fedora, and AUR for Arch. I think OBS for openSUSE and don't like the idea of using OBS for other distros, even if that's one of the big benefits and point to OBS.

AppArmor vs SELinux

I've ran Ubuntu and openSUSE servers and aside from a profile issue with PHP and openSUSE, I don't know if AppArmor is even protecting anything. Everything just works and it makes me think AppArmor is only applied to specific apps/services and not globally.

SELinux (at least on Fedora) is present, everywhere, and will gladly let you know if something is blocked because of it. I prefer this kind of protection even if it's more annoying at times :p Just a few weeks ago I learned about bin_t and that made my SELinux config for that service a lot more simple.

Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros?

I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server. And if I believed RH was being intentionally hostile, why would I support them at all and not go with a completely unrelated distro like SUSE?

What's the problem with that?

I don't know the exact limitations, but for a personal home lab that seems fine. For companies, I imagine they could either pay proper for RHEL, use free CentOS Stream or Fedora, or some other server distro like Ubuntu or SUSE. Why is there such a need for RHEL specifically?

The fragment part comes from KDE nor GNOME coming close to the efficiency of DWM and Windows Explorer.

DWM and Explorer have low-latency, good hardware-acceleration, and power efficiency down to a T. GNOME 44 isn't on-par. I haven't heard anyone ever compliment KDE in these regards recently and back when I last tried it when Plasma 5 was relatively new it also wasn't up-to-par.

More work should go towards making these GUI toolkits run as efficiently as possible, instead of re-inventing the wheel slowly while macOS and Windows continue going strong.

Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros?

I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. And if I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server.

Why would I want to use forks of RHEL instead of the 3 real and supported RH distros?

Lmao there's no winning with you people :p

Don't worry, Wayback is capable of telling CNET where to go if they were really concerned. If anything they should be thankful for the newly-generated interest that a major company would use them instead of some randoms cherry-picking sites for arguments.

Yeah I defend stuff that works :p

AMD is what you get without telemetry; crap API support on Windows (they took their already mangled stack and Jay Wilson'd it May 2022), next to no innovation with AI, flopped OpenCL, and have to concede with HIP since CUDA is too good. They can't even fix their botched TPM support that's so bad it had to be disabled globally on Linux.

Yeah that kind of silly selfish behavior is exactly why NVIDIA buries the telemetry deep in their drivers and doesn't offer an option.

Most people have no reason to limit or even be concerned with this. Intel is adding telemetry to improve the GPU drivers. Who would be against improving GPU drivers? Why are you considering Intel hostile?

I haven't visited a CNET page in years and didn't know they were even still relevant :p

The times I have visited CNET pages in the past was to find specific information. If such information happens to be in deleted articles, that would reduce my interactions with CNET in the future.

I think they should archive the old articles or even offload them to Wayback willingly, but it's possible some of the articles they're purging aren't worthwhile. If I write up an article about a cat playing on a scratching post, there's a good chance there's nothing unique or valuable about it and it doesn't need to sit around gathering bit rot :p

For a while I was only interested in newer Java releases just to see if Runescape ran on it :p

The usefulness seemed to cut-off with Java 11 though and now the RS Java client is being deprecated.

Yeah there might be one person discussing this in social media that legitimately values privacy.

If you value privacy, you aren't using Windows. If you value privacy, you should realize that most people only care about it to the extent of it just working, and it only does so for most people running major Windows and macOS desktop operating systems If you value privacy, then you know how to read Microsoft's privacy policy to know what your data is going towards on Windows. And if you value privacy, you can respect why Intel is doing this and also read their privacy policy as to how they use the data.

People are fear-mongering that Intel is taking usage data as if Intel has some interest in using the data maliciously. None of these major companies increasing and gathering telemetry have used the data in a truly malicious manner, unless you twist the wording for specific situations where bad-actors got caught doing bad-actor activity and have to comply with legal requests for information.

This is only beneficial for the audience Intel is targeting.

Part of that vocal minority is naive and was likely manipulated to push views that only benefit bad-actors.

If people were being sincere, they wouldn't be so vague in detailing how Intel is going to use this information maliciously.