I’ve noticed most responses are talking about DNS. The other issue with more modern ISP-supplied routers is that they can typically look into your LAN — this is a nonstarter for me.
I recently helped install such a router for a friend and they thought it was cool that from the ISP’s app they could approve/deny new devices joining their network. Sure the feature itself is cool, but there are routers on the market that do this without involving your ISP.
It doesn’t seem obvious to you who claims it’s “bad” because it “has a hard time deciding.” It can decide, guess how? Configuration
Maybe it is pedantry, but people writing for the general public should explain things well. Why didn’t they just write:
As a result, anyone wanting to access blocked sites from Russia is forced to use a VPN that encrypts internet traffic and makes it appear to come from outside Russia.
This way you’re not lying and saying a VPN “changes your IP address” which is both not accurate nor easily digestible for the general public. That part specifically is what gets me.
It’s the case of every VPN, it’s just that typically people choose to send all their traffic through it rather than that destined to specific networks.
Oh. You just mean there are multiple instances spread out everywhere.
Federated in my mind means the servers are talking to each other, typically via ActivityPub, so I was confused.
It’s only bad if you’re splitting it incorrectly lol
Searx is federated? I’ll have to read up on that; I use it all the time but had no idea.
I already block a crazy amount of ads with DNS blocklists (and block Google as well) but I’m at a point where I’m about to start intercepting my own HTTPS traffic in order to cache it.
I’m tunneling all my internet traffic through commercial VPNs to a completely different country across the planet with better privacy laws but damn the high latency is exhausting.
Doing some neat HTTP header manipulation with Privoxy would be incredible too.
Yes but this isn’t the point I’m getting at — VPN doesn’t always mean you’re sending all your Internet traffic down the tunnel. You can choose to configure only specific networks to use the VPN tunnel.
Yes but this isn’t the point I’m getting at — VPN doesn’t always mean you’re sending all your Internet traffic down the tunnel. You can choose to configure only specific networks to use the VPN tunnel.
You won’t be “on a different local network,” you’ll be accessing specific networks (or subnets) via the VPN tunnel rather than some other network interface on your machine.
So if you’re at home with a 192.168.0.0/24 network and you want to access an office resource on the 192.168.141.0/24 network, likely what will happen is your machine with have a route to 192.168.131.0/24 via the network the VPN provides (let’s just say 10.0.0.1).
Depending on how everything’s configured, the server you’re accessing might see it coming from the VPN server (masquerade) or it could very well be passed on as-is (which would only work if the server has a routing table back to you via the VPN).
Typically when people use VPNs for internet access, the traffic is sent out masqueraded so that it appears to come from the VPN’s WAN IP address.
This is the right answer.
If you’re routing internet traffic via the VPN tunnel then yes of course that’s true.
But you can be connected to a VPN and only direct specific subnets (like the traditional office network example) to it. You’re not always forced to use it as a default route (using the term loosely here).
That’s a good point too.
I’m primarily a web developer so essentially my entire toolkit is already FOSS and it doesn’t make sense to even run half of it on Windows. Windows is usually the odd one out with weird hacks to make it play nice.
I use macOS a lot too and because it’s UNIX my Linux toolset is available and ported to the OS with (what I understand to be) minimal changes.
And I’ve never needed to deploy to some Windows Server either (the thought frightens me).
Good point — I’m pretty far down the rabbit hole. I haven’t really wanted to mess with a non-UNIX/Linux based OS in ages.
Side note: what OS would that be besides DOS or Windows? Old-school Mac OS comes to mind (System 7) but I like playing with modern platforms more than older ones.
It’s so weird to me that Lemmy is full of anti-Windows, anti-Google posts but the comments are always “I’m thinking about switching.”
How about… just do it?
I don’t know what I’m trying to say but being 20 years into “Windows-free” a few years of “Google-free” it’s tiring. I know everyone isn’t me but it’s tough watching this from the other side.
As a result, anyone wanting to access blocked sites from Russia is forced to use a VPN, a protective tunnel that encrypts internet traffic and changes a user’s IP address.
I hate how media describes VPN. It doesn’t “change your IP address” but rather makes your traffic appear to come from a remote endpoint when configured to do so.
I use VPNs all the time that don’t “change my IP address” at all.
This is what gets me. Why don’t they do this? They’re turning down profit by discontinuing support, but probably their logic is someone else will benefit from the hardware without bringing in profit, so that’s bad forsomefucking reason.
Any good petition writers? I’d sign something like this in a heartbeat.
The red light bit seems spot on. In every article stating “it blew through a red light” there’s always the caveat that it’s just trying to clear the intersection while getting pulled over. Technically people are allowed to do that (and/or move to a safer area, such as getting into the right lane when being pulled over in the left lane).
I think media like to add the intersection stuff to rile people up.