I was kind of interested in the content, but I am so overloaded with AI slop by now, that reading this generated text gives me nausea.
I was looking to see why they landed on this stack, but there are no alternatives or evaluation criteria listed - given the generated article, I wonder how much of the infra was selected by an LLM.
Claude helped write the article. It is 2026. I proof read it though and yes, giving an LLM a list of specific criteria of what you are looking for in a product is actually a pretty good experience.
If it works for you, it works. I just see the same phrases used repeatedly so frequently nowdays - including my own LLM conversations.
Regarding the use of LLM for picking infra. The issue I usually have with such task is that they frequently omit things - either from the list of options or the features compared. And depending on my familiarity with the topic, I might never notice, which might steer my decision making into a different direction. Basically a certain bias. Sometimes prompting it to repeat reveals more, but ultimately I end up hitting the search and doing my own research, then I might use the LLM again with now more knolwedge and data. Did you run into this too? What was your process?
I do understand what you mean with bias.. some models where quite stubbornly ignoring things like "I want made in EU - not GDRP compliant - not one office or data center in the EU". I remember this being especially painful for TEM and market email providers. Usually they suck at finding the right pricing data at first try.. so I ended up throwing screenshots of pricing pages. Now that I am writing this up, in some instances manually comparing them would have been faster :D ... The bias might come from the huge amount of US dominance in training data and might not even be intentional. In some niches you don't have many options, that's what I tried leaning on in the article.
If that's the case, why do we have to suffer through an AI-generated article? Just give us the prompt.
This topic interests me but I stopped reading as soon as I noticed the slop. I'd much rather read a couple of human-written paragraphs with your personal experience.
Hah, what a coincidence, just started to look into yesterday how do I setup LDAP/OIDC on FreeBSD and today I was going to try FreeIPA or Keycloak. Thanks for sharing.
Awesome, it definitely helps. I realized I have your blog already bookmarked, I subscribed to the RSS feed now as well :) I am new to FreeBSD and these kind of practical articles are really helpful. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with others.
Thanks for mentioning this, I am just beginning my FreeBSD journey and wanted to setup a small pre-boot env with mfsBSD[1], didn't know FreeBSD has a tool already to do something like that.
You can run a container on Synology and install your custom services, tools there. At least that is what I do. For custom kernel modules you still need a Synology package for something like Wireguard.
If you have OPNSense, it has an ACME plugin with Synology action. I use that to automatically renew and push a cert to the NAS.
That said, since I like to tinker, Synology feels a bit restricted, indeed. Although there is some value in a stable core system (like these immutable distros from Fedora Atomic).
I have a fairly recent DS920+ and never had issues with containers - I have probably 10+ containers on it - grafana, victoriametrics/logs, jellyfin, immich with ML, my custom ubuntu toolboxes for net, media, ffmpeg builds, gluetun for vpn, homeassistant, wallabag,...
Edit: I just checked Grafana and cadvisor reports 23 containers.
Edit2: 4.4.302+ (2022) is my kernel version, there might be specific tools that require more recent kernels, of course, but I was so far lucky enough to not run into those.
While gluetun works great, there are other implementations of wireguard that fail without the kernel modules. I've also ran into issues from containers wanting the kernel modules for iptables-nft but Synology only has legacy iptables.
I know there are userspace implementations, but can't remember the specifics rn and don't have my notes with me.
> kernel modules for iptables-nft
I think you meant nftables. The iptables-nft package is meant to provide iptables interface for nftables for code that still expects that, afaik. I didn't run into that issue yet (knock-knock). According to docs nftables is available since kernel 3.13, so in theory it might be possible to build the modules for Synology.
However, I don't think I will be buying another Synology in the future, mainly because of other issues like they restricting what RAM I can use or what I want to use the M2 slots for, or their recent experiment with trying to push their own drives only, etc. I might give TrueNAS a try if I am not bored enough to just build one on top of a general purpose OS...
I had to look it up and I think it was a mix of user error and a bad container. At one point I had been trying to use the nicolaka/netshoot container as a sidecar to troubleshoot iptables on another container and it is/was(?) missing the iptables-legacy package and unable to interact with the first containers iptables.
As great as containerization is, having the right kernel modules available goes a long way and I probably wouldn't have run into trouble like that if the first container hadn't fallen back to iptables because nftables was unavailable.
All of these NAS OSs that include docker work great for the most popular containers, but once you get into the more complex ones strange quirks start poping up.
I think it still works if you set your user agent to something like lynx. I had a custom UA set for Google search in Firefox just for this purpose and to disable AI overviews.
I just tried with the "links" browser and I get a "Update your browser. Your browser isn't supported anymore. To continue your search, upgrade to a recent version"
Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors.
It is also hard for me to understand this angle. While in Russia at the moment and China the "they" is pretty much constant, it is not the case in EU. Why would be in their interest something that can be used against them the moment the tide turns?
> Why would be in their interest something that can be used against them the moment the tide turns?
They are doing this to prevent tide turn and personally, I feel like if both/many political parties agree to something like chat-control and agree that they make it a bi-partisan issue, then they can fundamentally do it and the "they" would be constant
Also the "they" here also refers to lobbying efforts. The billionaires/millionaires/rich people might like these things solely because it increases the influence of govt. and thus the rich people as well
As an example, Let me present to you the UK censorship act which tries to threaten any and every website with a very large price which is very scary to many people who have thus shut down their services / websites to UK at large if they were a niche project/couldn't do it
Internet as we speak, would continue on to become more centralized. I feel like the idea here is that make internet so centralized that you can control the flow of information itself(I mean it already is but there are still some spots left like hackernews as an example)
Its also one step towards authoritarianism. This could be a stepping stone for something even larger which could have a more constant "they" as well but I have already provided some reasonings as to why they do that, simply because they can and chat control gives them a way to do mass surveillance which is something which to me increases the infleunece of both parties or the whole system massively in a way which feels very threatening to freedom/democracy making it thus dystopian.
I was looking to see why they landed on this stack, but there are no alternatives or evaluation criteria listed - given the generated article, I wonder how much of the infra was selected by an LLM.
reply