I’ve found Jami from another comment a few hours ago, but I haven’t downloaded it yet. But I think it expects an existing internet/network connection, where Briar seems to be focused on getting messages across through any means available.

I’ve never used it, but I’ve heard of “Jami” that is supposed to operate in a similar fashion.

AFAIK, yes. Latest release is from March of this year, and they have commits as of a month ago.

Are you familiar with Briar?

Works over internet, TOR, local wifi, bluetooth, even “sneakernet”.

Open source with profanity in comments is statistically better than code without it

Ok, I’ll try again:

Again a solved problem, just make a decent GUI for your application.

You are promoting monolithic design. You completely fail to comprehend Unix philosophy:

2. Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program. Don’t clutter output with extraneous information. Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats. Don’t insist on interactive input.

GUIs are only used for human/application interaction. They are not needed for application/application interaction. While it is not unreasonable to have a GUI for interactive input within your application, it is infeasible and undesirable for a GUI to be needed for your application to interoperate with other applications.

Go ahead and create the GUI if you really want, but expect your users to want to call it from a shell script. Give users the capability to automate away unnecessary manual interaction, and allow the machine to take up that pointless busywork.

So googling how to do someone, copy/pasting command is better than finding it in GUI?

Oh, absolutely. Especially for a one-off setting that you might never look for again. There’s just no sense in wasting the time building up a complex GUI to handle every possible interaction a user could ever want to employ.

The solution to the “problem” of “needing to use the terminal” is to retrain the user to understand how limiting even the best GUI can be, and to greatly prefer the terminal.

So, my suggestion is, rather than try to hide away the terminal, it should be featured prominently, exposing the limitations and shortage of command line applications available to windows users. An effective, powerful, well-supported terminal is one of the major benefits of Linux.

Are you suggesting users with no programming experience can simply add the flags they need to a terminal application but would be unable to do the same with a GUI because the GUI is the barrier?

Yeah, why not? I’ll go ahead and make that suggestion.

I mean, the terminal allows them to ctrl-c, ctrl-v a simple solution developed by someone else, even if that someone else didn’t bother to build out a GUI for applying their changes.

The convoluted steps they would have to take to achieve the same effect with a GUI would seriously hinder the GUI-only user.

What I am really saying, though, is that the problem of “needing to use the terminal” is not actually solved by ensuring that every possible setting can be accessed and manipulated with a mouse.

I’m saying that the best way to solve this “problem” is by pushing the user to expect and even demand the terminal. Distros should autolaunch a terminal window at startup. Put it right out there, front and center. Invite the novice user to interact with it with friendly little toys like fortune, cowsay, sl, toilet, espeak. The insane usefulness of the various shell tools are more than enough to keep them using it.

With open source, the delineation between “user” and “programmer” is arbitrary and capricious. The GUI-centric Windows approach reinforces that artificial distinction; the terminal breaches that barrier.

Setting search is a solved problem, you simply search for the setting name in the UI,

This assumes the developer bothered to make that setting available through the UI.

With the terminal, that isn’t a problem: You’re using the same UI as the developer.

An effective terminal is a feature, not a bug. Every Linux problem has the same solution: search the web, ctrl-c, ctrl-v.

No navigating through “settings” and “preferences” and “tools” menus to figure out where this particular developer decided to hide that particular setting. Just copy and paste, problem solved.

was just a standard residential setup,

The distinction is important because we are discussing IPv6. A “standard residential setup” with IPv6 would provide the user with an entire subnet rather than a single IP address. We still need a router to pass traffic from the ISP’s network to our own network, but we no longer need NAT.

It’ll take you public IP and translate those packets to use your internal one.

That is NAT, yes. But that is only one small function that a router can perform, and not all routers have NAT enabled. You only need NAT if your ISP only allows you to use a single IP address.

If your computer has an address that starts with 169, 168, or 10 there is a NAT somewhere in your network.

That’s not actually true. I can create such a network without connecting it to the internet, no NAT. I can create a second network, again, no NAT. I can then use a gateway router that allows any node on the first network to reach any node on the second. That router is still not doing any NAT. It’s just passing traffic between two networks.

The Goat

Every single one of those temporary IP addresses has the same prefix, which traces back to you.

Its about as anonymous as adding an apartment number to your own street address.

i would say you want to route through as many jurisdictions as you feasibly can. For example, US investigators arent going to get any cooperation from Iran or North Korea; any trail that crosses into their borders is going to be a dead end for their investigation.

Dick cancer is better than almost all the existing ones.

I want to kill people with my phone. Make it 4 times heavier, and give it a hickory handle.

Never used plex. Finally got around to installing Jellyfin. Very happy with it.

She uses windows.

All use is fair use. Copyright should not exist.