weird, i wonder why. i just checked on an ubuntu 24.04 system to confirm it is there (and it is).

i guess your computer’s power button might not be supported (out of the box, at least) by Linux’s acpi implementation :(

It’s free software which you can host yourself. The source is here (GPLv3). You can read more about the people that make it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framasoft

(disclaimer: this information might be years out of date but i think it is still accurate?)

SSH doesn’t have a null cipher, and if it did, using it still wouldn’t make an SSH tunnel as fast as a TCP connection because SSH has its own windowing mechanism which is actually what is slowing you down. Doing the cryptography at line speed should not be a problem on a modern CPU.

Even though SSH tunnels on your LAN are probably faster than your internet connection (albeit slower than LAN TCP connections), SSH’s windowing overhead will also make for slower internet connections (vs rsync or something else over TCP) due to more latency exacerbating the problem. (Whenever the window is full, it is sitting there not transmitting anything…)

So, to answer OP’s question:

• if you want to rsync over SSH, you usually don’t need a daemon (or to specify --rsh=ssh as that is the default).
• if you the reason you want to use the rsync daemon is performance, then you don’t want to use SSH. you’ll need to open a port for it.
• besides performance, there are also some rsync features which are only available in “daemon mode”. if you want to use those, you have at least 3 options:
  • open a port for your rsync daemon, and don’t use SSH (bonus: you also get the performance benefit. downside, no encryption.)
  • setup an SSH tunnel and tell the rsync client it is connecting to a daemon on localhost
  • look at man rsync and read the section referred to by this:

    • The remote-shell transport is used whenever the source or destination path contains a single colon (:) separator after a host specification. Contacting an rsync daemon directly happens when the source or destination path contains a double colon (::) separator after a host specification, OR when an rsync:// URL is specified (see also the USING RSYNC-DAEMON FEATURES VIA A REMOTE-SHELL CONNECTION section for an exception to this latter rule).

HTH.

Hikarunix

only hobbyists and artisans still use the standalone carrot.py that depends on peeler.

in enterprise environments everyone uses the pymixedveggies package (created using pip freeze of course) which helpfully vendors the latest peeled carrot along with many other things. just unpack it into a clean container and go on your way.

Funny that blog calls it a “failed attempt at a backdoor” while neglecting to mention that the grsec post (which it does link to and acknowledges is the source of the story) had been updated months prior to explicitly refute that characterization:

5/22/2020 Update: This kind of update should not have been necessary, but due to irresponsible journalists and the nature of social media, it is important to make some things perfectly clear:

Nowhere did we claim this was anything more than a trivially exploitable vulnerability. It is not a backdoor or an attempted backdoor, the term does not appear elsewhere in this blog at all; any suggestion of the sort was fabricated by irresponsible journalists who did not contact us and do not speak for us.

There is no chance this code would have passed review and be merged. No one can push or force code upstream.

This code is not characteristic of the quality of other code contributed upstream by Huawei. Contrary to baseless assertions from some journalists, this is not Huawei’s first attempt at contributing to the kernel, in fact they’ve been a frequent contributor for some time.

Wasn’t Huawei trying to put a Backdoor into linux?

as far as i know, that has not happened.

what makes you think it did?

fremdscham++ 😬

Or you could just… learn to use the modern internet that 60% of internet traffic uses? Not everyone has a dedicated IPv4 anymore, we are in the days of mobile networks and CGNAT. IPv4 exhaustion is here today.

Where are you getting 60%? Google’s IPv6 Adoption page has it under 50% still:

(while other stats pages from big CDNs show even less)

If you have ::/0 in your AllowedIPs and v6 connections are bypassing your VPN, that is strange.

What does ip route get 2a00:1450:400f:801::200e (an IPv6 address for google) say?

I haven’t used wireguard with NetworkManager, but using wg-quick it certainly adds a default v6 route when you have ::/0 in AllowedIPs.

You could edit your configuration to change the wireguard connection’s AllowedIPs from 0.0.0.0/0 to 0.0.0.0/0,::/0 so that IPv6 traffic is routed over it. Regardless of if your wireguard endpoint actually supports it, this will at least stop IPv6 traffic from leaking.

ipv4 with an extra octet

that was proposed as “IPv4.1” on April 1, 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110404094446/http://packetlife.net/blog/2011/apr/1/alternative-ipv6-works/

Formally.

This video is full of jarring edits which initially made me wonder if someone had cut out words or phrases to create an abbreviated version. But, then I realized there are way too many of them to have been done manually. I checked the full original video and from the few edits i manually checked it seems like it is just inconsequential pauses etc that were removed: for instance, when Linus says “the other side of that picture” in the original there is an extra “p” sound which is removed here.

Yet another irritating and unnecessary application of neural networks, I guess.

Lemmy added an alt text field for image-only posts a few versions ago; it would be nice if more people would use it.

At least this post does link to the mastodon post which it is a screenshot of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_3D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(syntax)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_Programming_Language

Upload bandwidth doesn’t magically turn into download bandwidth

Actually, it does. Various Cable and DSL standards involve splitting up a big (eg, measured in MHz) band of the spectrum into many small (eg, around 4 or 8 kHz wide) channels which are each used unidirectionally. By allocating more of these channels to one direction, it is possible to (literally) devote more band width - both the kinds measured in kilohertz and megabits - to one of the directions than is possible in a symmetric configuration.

Of course, since the combined up and down maximum throughput configured to be allowed for most plans is nowhere near the limit of what is physically available, the cynical answer that it is actually just capitalism doing value-based pricing to maximize revenue is also a correct explanation.