rentar42

without trusting anyone.

Well, except of course the entity that gave you the hardware. And the entity that preinstalled and/or gave you the OS image. And that that entity wasn’t fooled into including malicious code in some roundabout way.

like it or not, there’s currently no real way to use any significant amount of computing power without trusting someone. And usually several hundreds/thousands of someones.

The best you can hope for is to focus the trust into a small number of entities that have it in their own self interest to prove worthy of that trust.

Like many other security mechanisms VLANs aren’t really about enabling anything that can’t be done without them.

Instead it’s almost exclusively about FORBIDDING some kinds of interactions that are otherwise allowed by default.

So if your question is “do I need VLAN to enable any features”, then the answer is no, you don’t (almost certainly, I’m sure there are some weird corner cases and exceptions).

What VLANs can help you do is stop your PoE camera from talking to your KNX and your Chromecast from talking to your Switch. But why would you want that? They don’t normally talk to each other anyway. Right. That “normally” is exactly the case: one major benefit of having VLANs is not just stopping “normal” phone-homes but to contain any security incidents to as small a scope as possible. Imagine if someone figured out a way to hack your switch (maybe even remotely while you’re out!). That would be bad. What would be worse is if that attacker then suddenly has access to your pihole (which is password protected and the password never flies around your home network unencrypted, right?!) or your PC or your phone …

So having separate VLANs where each one contains only devices that need to talk to each other can severely restrict the actual impact of a security issue with any of your devices.

Since most of those are run commercially and don’t make their data easily accessible, that’ll be a much different process, I assume. You’ll basically have to scrape them like any other web site, except you’ll specifically be targeting the edit/source view pages. Then find a wiki implementation that has as close a syntax as possible to the one they use (that could be tricky …) and upload there. So unless you happen to find some code from someone who wanted to do the exact same thing, I’m afraid this would involve quite some programming/scripting.

Oh, I’m 100% there with you on syntax. But having multiple pieces of software that support the same syntax seems useful.

Personally I’ve turned into more markdown kind of person rather than the traditional wiki syntax. And at least that one gained some level of standardization over time …

I’m sorry that my attempt to find out what you want to be able to provide useful help annoyed you.

Without any text it’s really hard to guess what you want and that’s why you get so many different answers.

Do you want to

• host a copy of wikipedia for yourself locally? Then download the database from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download (thanks zygo_histo_morpheus) and the sofware from https://www.mediawiki.org and get going. Both are freely available
• host a site that works like wikipedia but doesn’t contain its content, but your own? Just use MediaWiki.
• host a wiki, but not necessarily the one that powers wikipedia? Then pick one from https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted?tab=readme-ov-file#wikis

Note that I suspect you actually want the third one, in which case I suggest you avoid MediaWiki. Not because it’s bad, but because it’s almost certainly overkill for your use-case and there’s way simpler, easier-to-setup-and-maintain systems with fewer moving parts out there.

Increase the attack surface compared to what? If you don’t allow/enable any access to services inside your network from outside, then by definition you have fewer attack surfaces than if you add a VPN to that empty list.

So trivially the answer is “yes, it adds an attack surface”.

But what are the alternatives? If you directly expose each individual service on a dedicated port, for example, then you’d add many more (and usually less well hardened) attack surfaces instead.

So if the comparison is “expose 5 web-based services directly” vs. “expose one VPN like wireguard”, then the second option is almost always the clear winner when it comes to security (and frequently also when it comes to ease of setup as well as comfort).

This isn’t specific to just netdata, but I frequently find projects that have some feature provided via their cloud offering and then say “but you can also do it locally” and gesture vaguely at some half-written docs that don’t really help.

It makes sense for them, since one of those is how they make money and the other is how they loose cloud customers, but it’s still annoying.

Shoutout to healthcheck.io who seem to provide both nice cloud offerings and a fully-fledged server with good documentation.

I’ve not found a good solution for actual constant monitoring and I’ll be following this thread, but I have a similar/related item: I use healthcheck.io (specifically a self-hosted instance) to verify all my cron jobs (backups, syncs, …) are working correctly. Often even more involved monitoring solutions do not cover that area (and it can be quite terrible if it goes wrong), so I think it’ll be a good addition to most of these.

At a big enough LAN even just getting everyone to change that setting is probably harder than setting up a central cache. Don’t underestimate the amount of people that listen to instructions, say sure and then just either not do it, or fail to do it correctly.

USB SATA controllers are also very hit-and-miss. There’s plenty of really, really bad ones out there. Either missing features, slow, getting hot or all of the above. If you found one that works well, good for you, but I’d avoid most noname brands, unless I had specific knowledge about the product or the very least the chipset they use.

That example makes sense to me, because it’s an alternative to something like hosting a blog on some third party site: generate it statically and host the result somewhere.

I’ve got the same setup! What I love about authentik is that I can even add a Google login as an authentication method. That severely increases the spouse-acceptance factor, as they don’t have to “remember yet another password” or “carry around another thingie”. Personally I use a YubiKey anyway, but for others who aren’t into it “for fun” or for philosophical reasons reducing the friction as much as possible is paramount.

That’s a great answer if one already has a NAS (which is not unlikely, given the name of the community). But if that’s not already present (or desired for other reason) then a simple media-PC with some built-in storage is simpler to set up.

I suggest to avoid the temptation to get one of the many cheap Android boxen meant for media playback from Ali Express or the like, as they have a strong tendency to be heavily loaded with malware. Definitely not all of them, but it’s really hard to tell which specific one you’ll get.

Now you make me feel old. In “the olden days” before streaming of media over the internet was as commonplace as it was now, that was the standard way that tech-savy people consumed media: Either on their PC or with some set-top box with built-in storage. I fondly remember my PopcornHour, which was basically a line of desktop-boxes that ranged from “basically a hard disk, video decoder and HDMI out” all the way to “can automatically rip your BlueRays”.

A custom “source available” license that may not be as clear-cut as intended and depends on “we know it when we see it” by the authors of the license? You don’t say!

I’ve not tried that myself, but AFAIK VLC can be remote controlled in various ways, and since the API for that is open, multiple clients for it exist: https://wiki.videolan.org/Control_VLC_from_an_Android_Phone

There’s also Clementine which offers a remote-control Android app.

https://lemmy.world/post/12995686 was a recent question and most of the answers will basically be duplicates of that.

One slight addition I want to add: “Docker” is just one implementation of “OCI containers”. It’s the one that broke through initially in the hype, but you can just as easily use any other (podman being a popular one) and basically all of the benefits that people ascribe to “docker” can be applied to.

So you might (as I do) have some dislike for docker (the product) and still enjoy running containers.

I personally prefer podman, due to its rootless mode being “more default” than in docker (rootless docker works, but it’s basically an afterthought).

That being said: there’s just so many tutorials, tools and other resources that assume docker by default that starting with docker is definitely the less cumbersome approach. It’s not that podman is signficantly harder or has many big differences, but all the tutorials are basically written with docker as the first target in mind.

In my homelab the progression was docker -> rootless docker -> podman and the last step isn’t fully done yet, so I’m currently running a mix of rootless docker and podman.