Are the https requests being sent to an IP address assigned to node B? If so you either need an nginx reverse proxy on node B or NAT with port forwarding.

Me: we’re on PCIe 7 now???

Obviously most companies will join whatever meeting invite they get sent but all the meetings they’ve created with me are via meet (we normally use teams)

I have had calls with SUSE sales reps because I’m in the enterprise space, can confirm they use Google meet and Google workspace in general. Still not FOSS, but not Microsoft.

I feel the same, btrfs is such a core part of my system at this point it would be hard to go anywhere else

Bash would be confused

Sandwich user do

Guix just makes me think someone looked at nix and was like

Hmmm, needs more parentheses, we should do that but lisp

Same although for a totally different reason. There are some services that really don’t like gtlds and they will say your address is invalid if it doesn’t end in .com, .net, or .org…all my serious domains are gtld…so some services have emails on meme domains because the only domains I have with traditional tlds are memes

Reading the README on the GitHub is amazing. I love the energy of this project if nothing else

It’s gotten better but I’m not v6 only, I just don’t have v4. I have NAT64 which basically uses your IPv6 as the private address in a traditional NAT setup, allowing you to continue to access the legacy internet without IPv4 inside your network. Catch is you can’t connect to IPv4 addresses because it relies on a DNS64 server to generate IPv6 AAAA records from the IPv4 address when a domain only returns IPv4 so only DNS based services work. Basically it lets you have all the befits of a v6 only network with few of the drawbacks.

…right…I can’t view this meme LMAO…I don’t have IPv4 on my network 🤣

Too bad it doesn’t work, probably because of vhosting

Yep, I’m aware of that too, doesn’t change my initial point

…right…tell that to cmd.exe or the OpenVPN daemon, or the soft ether VPN daemon, or OpenConsole.exe, or Idk, I only tested 4 that immediately came to mind but my point stands. There are a lot of programs that do not have a window handle and do not bother with window messages.

You clearly didn’t read my message…I said a “window close message.” I.e…WM_CLOSE. that is not a process signal, it’s a window management signal. Hence taskkill not working without /f on headless processes

TIL about the console signaling stuff, good to know. I am aware of SEH but that seemed a little too in the weeds for this discussion since that’s as you say akin to SIGSEGV

Ironically it’s actually the opposite. Linux has signals, and with the exception of SIGKILL and I think SIGABRT they can all be handled gracefully. Windows on the other hand doesn’t have signals, it can only TerminateProcess() which is forceful. The illusion of graceful termination on windows is done by sending a Window close message to all of the windows belonging to a given process, however in the event the process has no windows, only forceful termination is available due to the lack of a real mechanism to gracefully terminate processes. That’s why the taskkill command tells you a process requires forceful termination when you run it against something headless.

You can have a file in 2 folders, they’re called hardlinks

The very silly argument the FSF is trying to make is that device A is not programmable because the firmware is baked into the HW effectively making it part of the HW rather than a separate entity. Therefore it’s a HW limitation and not proprietary software. Device B on the other hand has proprietary software uploaded to it which is not to be allowed under any circumstances and therefore must be neutered. I call it silly because as you so rightfully point out, the firmware blob could be literally the same exact blob, just stored differently