kolorafa

On the server side to send you data, using any web server with mmap support will probably be less CPU intensive than app that handles websocket, but yes, the details matter as when reading a lot of small files vs websocket, then websocket could be better for CPU usage especially when you could generate data.

But once again using plain old http allow you to use the speestest software against any CDN very easy IMO.

Container is just a term for a set of isolation solutions bundled together.

Like file system isolation (chroot), network isolation, process isolation, device isolation...

One of them is ofc chroot, yes container use exactly the same chroot functionality.

So to answer your question, no, you don't need full isolated container. You can use only chroot.

You just need to pass all required devices ( and match the driver version running in kernel with your files in container and (avoid) more than one app having full unrestricted access to GPU as that would result in issues (but dont know the details so can't help you with that)).

Yes, but with WebSocket you need to have a server and that will consume some additional CPU.

Without it you only need some random CDN to do the download test.

You can use wayland in container but the easy way probably would require to give whole GPU to the container (but my knowlwdge is limited)

What I do know that this project is doing that: https://games-on-whales.github.io/

That also came up in search results that could help: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/359244

My guess that websocket add additional overhead both in size (header) and complexity as browser and server need to encode/decode it making it more CPU intensive not to mention harder to implement.

The only reason ssh client would "hang" without any output is when it's waiting for external key storage to allow access. It's designed that way to give user some time to approve access to key storage.

It sometimes happen that the installed key storage is broken in a way that it fails to show user modal, for any reason (showing on wrong screen, wrong desktop, wrong activity, wrong framebuffer, ....)

One solution (that you already did) is to change the SSH agent env variable to point to different key storage.

Another would be (if possible) to uninstall the broken key storage if you don't use it. But it is sometimes needed/used by other apps.

It's overall good to notify/open bug on your distro issue tracker to notify that some packages are missconfigured (maybe have missing dependencies) or conflicts with other ones.

Does it support intro skip?

Not true, I'm just fighting the myth that incognito mode gives you (any) privacy.

Company have many legal reasons to store my IP and they do so, don't have a problem with it, but they can't use it legally for advertising without consent. You are agreeing to tracking, that in turn allow them to use your IP for tracking, it doesnt matter if its in incognito mode as now they can track you legally also outside. So your comment about using incognito is just plain wrong.

Ultimatily it's about the rules (including gdpr), I don't agree/approve to be tracked and don't want my visit to be linked to me, so if the website like that don't want to provide content in exchange for ads (like in the OP case above) then they don't need to.

I fully know they can (and probably doing it without asking because they can) track my activity to serve targeted ads. I just voice my disgust and voice my disapproval with the state the advertising is now, and propose a solution that I personally am fine with it.

Why do you think I'm using adblock and pi-hole for?

10-50 people normal use case?

For KeePass no, for VaultWarden yes.

Just got triggered for the comment above suggesting a solution that doesn't work for quite a lot of deployments/users, but yes, my comment was a little bit out of place as for single user deployments KeePass is probably way simpler/better.

Totally agreed, but there are pros and cons.

File - harder to steal but once stolen hacker can bruteforce it as much as it wants. Web service - with proper rate limits (and additional IP whitelist so you can only sync on VPN/local network) - its harder to bruteforce. (But yes, you (sometimes) have also full copy locally in the local client, but ...)

If it was only for me I probably would also go with KeePass as you will not update the same db at the same time, but with with multiple users it's getting unmanageable.

I just got triggered as those CVEs are not that bad due to the nature that the app encrypts stuff on the client side so web server is more like shared file storage, while your answer suggested to switch to a solution that doesn't work for a lot of people (as we already tried that).

Explain how can you use KeePass+Syncthing with 10-50 people (possibly different groups for different passwords) having different sets of access level while maintaining sane ease of use?

The passwords are encrypted in the first place so the security for them is only on the client side.

They only need to serve ads related to the conent. Because that is most likely something im interested in as I'm visiting the page for that. They don't need any permissions/cookies for that.