The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
2ndBest said:
It's crazy just how much progress has been made in only 6 years.
Click to expand...
i still remember the days where it often was a pain to get some games to work, and a nightmare for others.
proton is the holy grail, one of the biggest issues solved easily without hassle. wine walked so proton could run.
now we've got dedicated linux gaming devices like the steam deck, which wouldn't be what it is without it.
and with lenovo potentially using steamos and valve supporting other devices apart from the deck, the future of linux gaming is bright.
 
davids877 said:
The usual search for this is the Debian package search page
"Search the contents of packages"

guess the module has a file named "cPython.py" and select "packages that contain files whose names contain the keyword"

and get:
/usr/lib/python3.11/cProfile.pylibpython3.11-stdlib
Now, this was for Bookworm so you'll need to search for your version to see the appropriate package name.
Click to expand...
A reinstall of the libpython stdlib fixed it. Thank you kindly for your assistance.
 
Anyone here that play HL:Alyx on Linux? I have this issue where whenever the game switched map, it would Bork SteamVR with a -203 error and (sometimes) crash my whole KDE interface.

Tried this using the native Linux build and the Proton one, same thing. Looking at it online, seems like quite a few people complained about it since 2022, and no real fix has been posted yet.
 
TheDataHorder said:
i still remember the days where it often was a pain to get some games to work, and a nightmare for others.
proton is the holy grail, one of the biggest issues solved easily without hassle. wine walked so proton could run.
now we've got dedicated linux gaming devices like the steam deck, which wouldn't be what it is without it.
and with lenovo potentially using steamos and valve supporting other devices apart from the deck, the future of linux gaming is bright.
Click to expand...
We're so close to the year of the linux desktop
 
Betonhaus said:
Since Linux servers can have more then one IP address, is it possible for me to assign my WAN IP address to my server? would that mean that devices on the local network would talk to it directly when accessing sites hosted at my home ip address, or would that break a bunch of things or do nothing?
Click to expand...
This is a babbys first networking course thing so I'll explain why this wouldn't work instead of just saying 'rtfm lol'

Your local devices exist on a network, probably something like 192.168.1.0 with the subnet mask 255.255.255.0

When a device on your network wants to send an IP packet, it will use it's own IP address and the subnet mask to figure out if the destination IP address it's trying to reach is within it's own subnet or somewhere else. If it isn't within it's own subnet (i.e: within your local network) then the packet has to be routed.

If the destination is on the same subnet, then the local device will perform a local broadcast asking for who owns that IP address and send the packet directly to it.

If the destination isn't on the same subnet, then the local device will forward it's packet to it's default gateway, which would be your router.

The local device figures out if it's destination is on the same subnet by performing a bitwise AND with the subnet mask and the two IP addresses. You don't really need to know what that means. For 99% of consumer subnets that means when the mask has a 255 then it will compare the entire part of the IP address for the source and destination addresses.

If your local device has an IP address of 192.168.1.13 then only the first three octets will be compared against the destination. If the destination is 192.168.1.11 then the comparison would look like '192.168.1.0' == '192.168.1.0'. Since both networks match, the local device knows it doesn't have to send this packet to the router.

If the destination is 190.165.55.3, then the comparison would look like '192.168.1.0' == '190.165.55.0'. Since the subnets don't match, this means the destination is outside of the local network and the packet needs to go to the default gateway.

Even if your server advertises that it has your WAN IP address, that IP address sits outside of your local network. Your local devices will never try to reach it over the local network, they will always try to go through your router first.
 
Last edited:
MatrixMustDie said:
Even if your server advertises that it has your WAN IP address, that IP address sits outside of your local network. Your local devices will never try to reach it over the local network, they will always try to go through your router first.
Click to expand...
Ah ok that makes sense. what if instead of using 192.168.x.x for my network I was to use the first three parts of my wan IP address, then assign my actual wan ip address to my server? Tho I expect that would break a lot of things, most noteably peer to peer communication with other people my ISP has that ip range assigned to.
 
Betonhaus said:
Ah ok that makes sense. what if instead of using 192.168.x.x for my network I was to use the first three parts of my wan IP address, then assign my actual wan ip address to my server? Tho I expect that would break a lot of things, most noteably peer to peer communication with other people my ISP has that ip range assigned to.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't be able to. Your home router needs to be on at least two unique networks. One network for your local network, which splits out from the ethernet ports at the back of your router, and another for the GPON/Coax/DSL/IPAC connection.

Your router's routing table would look something like this:

Code: 
Network           Interface  Description
192.168.1.0/24    eth0       Connection to the local network.
192.168.1.1/32    eth0       Loopback route for our own IP on the local network.
11.143.170.0/24   en0        Connection to the ISP network.
11.143.170.45/32  en0        Loopback route for our own IP on the ISP network.

Your router's routing table can only contain unique entries. If your WAN network was the same as your LAN network then your router would just scream in confusion and refuse to route packets for one of the networks.
 
Betonhaus said:
Since Linux servers can have more then one IP address, is it possible for me to assign my WAN IP address to my server? would that mean that devices on the local network would talk to it directly when accessing sites hosted at my home ip address, or would that break a bunch of things or do nothing?
Click to expand...
By that point you're looking at port forwarding, or more technically speaking, network address translation. If it comes from an external address, send it to local address X at port Y, anyone from the outside only sees your ISP's IP and it's up to you to bind your local machines and services to it. In case of websites, owning a domain name where you can create subdomains also gives more flexibility, the server receives a request from a specific subdomain and you decide what's meant to be served under it.

But also you're looking into the implications of opening up a service to the web, since that means anyone can prod at it, and if there's a vulnerability that can be exploited, it will be, and in case of a full compromise, how well was that public facing web server VM isolated? Was it on a separate VLAN? Was it well-isolated from the VM host itself? Was there even a reason to open it up to the world or was it something that only you were meant to access, in which case remote connecting via WireGuard would be the saner and infinitely safer choice? Because if it's just the case of "I want to have remote access to my home lab" and not "I want to set something up for my friends", WireGuard is the only scenario in consideration. One port, UDP as well so cannot be seen w/ port scanning, key pair authentication, no one else but you can access your shit.

Multiple IP's aren't inherent to Linux servers/Proxmox either. If I set up 86Box with a Windows 98 machine to bind to my physical NIC over Pcap, this Windows 98 machine ends up getting a local IP on my main router's DHCP server as if it was an actual computer in my network. Pretty sure same can be done with Hyper-V. Networking is fun like that, has to be OS agnostic by design, can do weird shit like that and is a PITA to understand.
 
MatrixMustDie said:
Your router's routing table can only contain unique entries. If your WAN network was the same as your LAN network then your router would just scream in confusion and refuse to route packets for one of the networks.
Click to expand...
I am 99% certain this whole post is rubbish. If there's multiple possible entries in your routing, it'll choose the most specific one. Hence why 192.168.0.0/24 will always get chosen over 0.0.0.0/0, which covers everything.

If your ISP were to assign you a subnet rather than a single IP, there's no reason why you couldn't use that for everything and avoid RFC1918 addresses entirely. This is how IPv6 works, after all.
 
Rusty Metal Skull Gun said:
I am 99% certain this whole post is rubbish. If there's multiple possible entries in your routing, it'll choose the most specific one. Hence why 192.168.0.0/24 will always get chosen over 0.0.0.0/0, which covers everything.

If your ISP were to assign you a subnet rather than a single IP, there's no reason why you couldn't use that for everything and avoid RFC1918 addresses entirely. This is how IPv6 works, after all.
Click to expand...
I said unique entries. 192.168.1.0/27 and 192.168.1.32/28 are unique, non-overlapping subnets. Do you see comcast handing out ipv4 subnets to rando subscribers?
 
Rusty Metal Skull Gun said:
I don't know anything about Comcast, but I know of at least two UK ISPs that will give out IPv4 subnets if you pay for it.
Click to expand...
If you pay for it. Comcast requires you to have "Business Class" to get even a single static IPv4 address, and charges an arm and a leg for it. Not relevant to our discussion of home port-forwarding.
 
Betonhaus said:
Ah ok that makes sense. what if instead of using 192.168.x.x for my network I was to use the first three parts of my wan IP address, then assign my actual wan ip address to my server? Tho I expect that would break a lot of things, most noteably peer to peer communication with other people my ISP has that ip range assigned to.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you trying to do? It sounds like you want to put your server into a DMZ. If the concern is not having a static IP, you can use DuckDNS as a free Dynamic DNS provider. I have a domain with Name cheap and use their dynamic DNS to point a subdomain to my house, and then use cname to point other subdomains to that first domain. I run Caddy on my server to provide SSL and reverse proxy to all the services running out of my house (Immich, mesh central, etc.) which gives me the benefit of not needing to port forward more than 443 for https.
 
"why doesn't that pug guy just map a port like a normal person?"
 
I did but if I go to mysite.com from my local network my videos and data transfers are still capped at my cable internet upload speed, even when everything is on the same network.

Which leads to running a home DNS server to redirect trading to my server to my server's lan IP address

Which leads to finding that most modern browsers don't use the traditional DNS protocol by default, but DNS over HTTPS which is not possible to set up for home use
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom