Indeed, but a lot of earthship building is just rough manual labor useing cheap or free materials. It doesn’t take specialized tools, although they will save you time.

Effort is something the poor have to supply much more of than the rich to reach a steady state, but with the above design its possible instead of out of reach.

For anyone with a work ethic but more time than money, an earthship is a stunningly efficient passive home designed in the 70s that uses rammed earth tires covered with adobe as walls, thermal mass to maintain heat, and giant windows to bring in light. The roof is designed to drain into water cisterns, and grey water (kitchen, bathroom sink) is used to water crops grown inside a beautiful inner garden. Its fully ready to be integrated with PV.

Here’s an example if you want to see one of the many that people have built. Here is some more analysis of the viability.

I’m still new to this myself, but yes that’s the gist of it. This isn’t k8s or even k3s. It’s an easy way to deploy a container via code on a single node system using the already present systemd for management. It let’s you pretend that Linux handles containers natively like it does daemons.

This article from redhat has more information about the why and what.

Yup. I read it as “compose and manage containers with systemd.”

Sure, there is a k8s layer abstracted into podman to do this, but you don’t manage or interact with it. Everything is a systemd unit file, a simple text document with a well understood structure. Containers are started and logged like services.

Easy, direct, tidy.

deleted by creator

Yes and no. The auditing is likely the harder part. You can use something like tailscale or nebula vpn to get the always on vpn/ACLs. With a dozen or two devices, it should be doable at a home scale.

If you want clientless zerotrust then you’re talking heavier duty things like Palo alto gear and the like.

ZeroTrust is a specific type of network security where every network device has its access to other devices validated and controlled, not a statement on the trustworthiness of vendors.

Instead of every device on a LAN seeing every other device, or even every device on a VLAN seeing other devices on a VLAN, each device can only connect with the other devices it needs to work, and those connections need to be encrypted. These connectioms are all monitored, logged and alerted on to make sure the system is working as intended.

You do need to trust or validate the tooling that does the above, regardless of what you’re using.

Copper core versus copper clad aluminum is going to matter here too. Both will claim to hit the spec, but you’re more likely to get there with the expensive copper only.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Nice hacking mate.

Rocky Rocky Linux

Rocky^2 linux for short

So far, thats the most specific reason someone has given to use XDG, but I dont think it accurate.

FHS is the most used, as it’s been the primary linux filesystem standard for decades. Isn’t it better to stick with it if the only metric is popularity?

Yeah, I fully get that. The post and comments were very specific about how if you dont follow XDG, you’re fucking up, while only generally saying that “everything would be better if everyone followed the same standard.”

I pointed out that there are several standards and asked for a unique reason why XDG was the best to use.

I still haven’t heard one, which is fine, but it undermines the “If youre not using, XDG youre a idiot” tone of the post and comments.

All specifications exist for a reason, and they all have a clear purpose.

What happens when you have 15 that are different and all overlap? When any of 15 is “right?”

/etc is a standard, defined in the filesystem hierarchy standard. This is not:

freedesktop.org produces specifications for interoperability, but we are not an official standards body. There is no requirement for projects to implement all of these specifications, nor certification.

Below are some of the specifications we have produced, many under the banner of ‘XDG’, which stands for the Cross-Desktop Group.

Its nit-picking, but this is a specification, i.e a preference, not an official standard. It would be great if everyone would agree on just one of these to use, but that isn’t a foregone conclusion. Even the actual standard, the FHS, isn’t followed by popular OS’s like NixOS.

Someone asking a question doesnt merit the insult of saying they “would never ask if they used a terminal.” I have no particular dog in this fight, but not being a dick isn’t that hard.

As to using this standard, just because this is your preferred standard, doesnt mean its the only standard.

It may actually be the best now, but so were the 14 others that came before it. Your stated reasons are the same reasons as everyone agreeing to use any other standard. Consistency, predictability, automation,ease of backup/restore, etc.

What sets this standard apart from all the rest? Based on their own description, they aren’t even an official standard, just one in “very active” use.

So why this, specifically? Just because its what you’re already doing?

Wendel does amazingly deep dives on all things hardware. Hes got that deep, deep sysadmin understanding of various components and integrations that always make his videos on hardware a smokeshow, no matter genre.

I wouldn’t even call this a bad title, but if that keeps you from watching one of the best IT youtubers out there, so be it.