41–50 of 100 posts
This is just changing the default permissions on a home directory -not a more complicated encrypted/systemd setup I thought it would be.
This is just changing the default permissions on a home directory -not a more complicated encrypted/systemd setup I thought it would be.
I remember a while ago, Ubuntu used encryptfs for home directories, but it was removed. Weird, because I thought it was a great idea
I’ve been using fscrypt to encrypt my home directory for over a year now and it seems to work fine: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Fscrypt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally thought they were turning on homed with encryption by default, and was _super_ excited. I've been toying with doing that myself and having someone go first would be great.
If this encryption is still the same as it used to be a couple of years ago (encfs, IIRC), it's good they aren't. I stumbled on that multiple times before I learned not to turn this shit on. Every time on a new installation (which doesn't happen that often, so it's natural I was forgetting) I chose "do encrypt" option (because why not?), it was working perfectly fine long enough for me to settle in, and then one day…
EDIT: Looks like LUKS is supported now, which is nice:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd-homed#LUKS_home...
Makes sense to me, but I'd be much more excited to go back to not having the snap directory shoved in my face.
I’ve heard good things about pop os. Have you tried and liked any of the others? It was a bit unnerving to have my Firefox windows change all of a sudden due to upgrade.
Ubuntu should develop shadow accounts - the user will log in to a completely different account of the same login depending on password. That is if someone forces you to log in you could use different password and pretend it is your stuff.
Even ubuntu can't keep themselves from smacking you in the face with a full-page cookie acceptance pop-up that illegally fails to provide an opt-out. Sad.
Did you try disabling Javascript? The page looks fine in text-only browser I use. Does need Javascript to convey the information. As users, we cannot control what web developers choose to do with websites, but we can control what software we use to make HTTP requests and read HTML.
Most of my systems have a user for myself, and one or two other users like `sketchy` or `test` or something for programs that I trust enough to run, but don't trust enough to not fuck up my home directory in some way (including modifying startup scripts, which IMHO should probably require sudo to edit, even for a normal user).
If the program is really sketchy and you're worried about it doing something like exfiltrating ~/Documents/taxes, then private home directories would definitely seem like a good default. You can always have an explicitly shared area like /home/shared/$user that defaults to public.
Makes sense to me, but I'd be much more excited to go back to not having the snap directory shoved in my face.
1. Create a file in your home called .hidden with one line "snap" to hide it in the file browser.
2. You can add --hide=snap to your ls alias to hide folders by that name.
To me, user accounts have always seemed like the more reasonable approach to sandboxing vs. cloning the universe to run a single program in a container. Most of my systems have a user for myself, and one or two other users like `sketchy` or `test` or something for programs that I trust enough to run, but don't trust enough to not fuck up my home directory in some way (including modifying startup scripts, which IMHO s…