𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍

Hugo isn’t a server, per se. It’s basically just a template engine. It was originally focused on turning markdown into web pages, with some extra functionality around generating indexes and cross-references that are really what set it apart from just a simple rendering engine. And by now, much of its value is in the huge number of site templates built for Hugo. But what Hugo does is takes some metadata, whatever markdown content you have, and it generates a static web site. You still need a web server pointed at the generated content. You run Hugo on demand to regenerate the site whenever there’s new content (although, there is a “watch” mode, where it’ll watch for changes and regenerate the site in response). It’s a little fancier than that; it doesn’t regenerate content that hasn’t changed. You can have it create whatever output format you want - mine generates both HTML and gmi (Gemini) sites from the same markdown. But that’s it: at its core, it’s a static site template rendering engine.

It is absolutely suitable for creating a portfolio site. Many of the templates are indeed such. And it’s not hard to make your own templates, if you know the front-end technologies.

It depends on how you want to write. If you want to use a web interface, WriteFreely is decent. If you like your text editor, Hugo is fantastic.

:shrug:

It’s trivial to host yourself, and super light on resources. Personally, I don’t use it; for blogging I write markdown and rsync it over to the server where Hugo picks it up and turns it into a blog. Now that I think about it, I should probably go shut my WriteFreely down. I have a few pages on it, but I hate web app interfaces, so I didn’t put much content in it.

Docker of one version of software that uses Linux containers to encapsulate software and that software’s dependencies, while limiting that software’s access to the underlying OS. It’s chroot, but for more of the system. It can make running software that has a lot of moving parts and dependencies easier. It can also improve your security running that software.

For how-tos, watch one of the 875,936 YouTube tutorials, or read one of the 3 million text tutorials. Or ask ChatGPT, if you really need hand-holding.

I’ve only used my GL.iNet router with Mullvad, and I assume you’re going through the manual configuration for WireGuard part of the UI? Have you found the scan qr/upload config/manual input config part? From as far as I’ve tried it, it’s like setting up any WireGuard endpoint - you have to give it the same sort of config file you’d give wg-quick, including subnet, hosts, etc - the same place you’d put your pk.

Generate the config file on a different computer and upload it through the UI.

“Cheap” being relative, I think GL.iNet products are reasonably priced, and their software is OpenWRT with a customized web interface. $40 for their small, portable WiFi 5 Opal; $95 for their WiFi 6 “home” router; $130 for the WiFi 6 Opal. The Opals work fine for covering a 1br apartment, but have 2 eth ports. The bigger one (Flint?) has 4.

You know, I have no idea about flashing ability.

I missed the “ethernet only” part, sorry! I just buy Netgear routers, but they’re all unmamaged so relatively dumb.

I love these GL.iNet products (their portable models are fantastic, too). Runs OpenWRT, built in support for Mullvad (both OpenVPN and Wireguard), reasonably priced; fantastic kit.

This is the way. Exim is far easier to config than Postfix, which is what I’m using now. I’d run Exim before for years, but thought I’d try Postfix since it’s the popular kid. It was a mistake, but everything is running and stable, and… well, sunk costs is keeping me from reconfiguring my set-up.

It’s a bit of effort to get everything configured correctly in any case, because of the number of moving parts. SPF and DMARC on the DNS entries, dovecot, Postfix or Exim, and a spam manager. Spam management consumes a huge amount of resources.

It really is the only way, though.

I don’t know about “shouldn’t use USB for storage;” it’s perfectly fine. However, if you can use a SATA interface, I would. You’ll get better performance in general from it, and that’s what the port is there for.

Yeah, zfs is what I meant. Or yfs, as in “Y-use anything but btr-FS?”

xfs. ext4 doesn’t have a comparable feature set, and nobody is going to use those others as their main filesystems on Linux. bcachefs will be a contender, once it’s included in the kernel, or if you’re the sort who compiles their own kernels.

Companies are beginning to realize there’s literally nothing stopping them from advertising on Lemmy.

I have only had positive experiences with B2; I don’t even keep an eye on competitor prices any longer. I hope their employees are getting decent raises out of it.

I mean that, when IPv6 started filtering out to non-specialists, network security wasn’t nearly as complex, and nor was the frequency of escalation what it is today. Back when IPv6 was new(ish), there weren’t widespread botnets exploiting newly discovered vulnerabilities every week. The idea of maintaining a personal network of internet-accessible devices was reasonable. Now maintaining the security of a dozen different devices with different OSes is a full time job.

Firewalling off subnets and limitting the access to apps through a secured gateway of reverse proxies is bot bad networking. That’s all a NAT is, and reducing your attack surface is good strategy.

The argument for IPv6 that there could be a unique address for 200 devices for every person living on the planet was much more compelling when network security was a more simple space.