Agreed with using keepass. If you're one person accessing your passwords, there's no reason you need a service running all the time to access your password db. It's just an encrypted file that needs to be synced across devices.
However, if you make frequent use of secure password sharing features of lastpass/bitwarden/etc, then that's another story. Trying to orchestrate that using separate files would be a headache. Use a service (even if self-hosted).
Ooo I just found out element added support for drop-in/drop-out voice and video rooms. That's the real killer feature they've been lacking I think. Will have to try it out.
Yeah, I saw that element is using jitsi under the hood for its screensharing. If that makes for a seamless user experience, that's great. It's been like 10 years since I last tried Jitsi, but it was not smooth.
TBH both disc and slack have their downsides, disc more so, so I'm fine if they just take the best of all worlds.
But yeah, screensharing is the deciding factor for me. As much as all my friends hate discord, we use screensharing all the time (it's just a bit jankier getting it working on Linux).
This one is clearly made to look like slack, which is great I need to try this out. Just wish someone would make one that looks like disc. And then matrix needs screensharing support.
Does it work now? I tried it around a year ago and couldn't get voice to work at all. It even had a message saying they were in the process of rewriting their voice streaming backend, and the legacy path may just be broken.
Discord compatible bots run on whatever server you run them on, they're not owned or run by Discord.
It says the client is compatible with both space-bar and discord.com, so yeah, if you use it with discord, expect all the downsides of discord.
Thanks, good to know!
I think their question is, what do you mean by "secure"? Because as the saying goes for internet services: usually, if you're not paying, you're not the customer, you're the product.
Agreed. Anyone who thinks it's ok to just expose ssh on 22 to the internet has never looked at their logs. The port will be found in minutes, and be hammered by thousands of login attempts by multiple bots 24/7. Sure you can block repeat failed logins, but that list will just always be growing.
Normal for who? I wouldn't expose SSH on 22 to the internet unless you have someone whose full time job is monitoring it for security and keeping it up to date. There are a whole lotta downsides and virtually no upsides given that more secure alternatives have almost zero overhead.
Btw it looks like you accidentally quoted the same sentence twice.