I understand the first paragraph is set to draw you in but honestly I was thing with every sentence: speak for yourself. None of it describes me. It's also not my experience in general, but maybe me and those around me are odd?
This is a sneaky edit completely different from the original post I replied to, which was about how bloated zotero was and how the op had uni stalled immediately and gone back to text files on disk.
Hi @ifh-hn , would you mind sharing what features you feel might make zotero better than text files on a disk? I'm genuinely interested to learn.
I've heard of zotero maybe a year or so ago, and was curious about it, but never took the plunge. I manage the bulk of my info/knowledge base across mostly locally-saved text files, with a few other tidbits leveraging PDFs and word process files (.odt, .docx)...and really i only use the latter for pasting in screenshots. And, then of course simply synching them across devices using syncthing.
While my approach works great for the majority of the time, i can imagine there might be some functions that some other tools might bring me which i might be missing...I suppose one thing that i lack is a graph of linkages for content that might live in different, separate files but might be related, etc. So, would you be willing to share your opinion, experience for what makes zotero better than text files on a disk? :-) Thanks!
I use it in an academic sense. I use it browser plugin to one click capture a source. Zotero mostly automatically identifies the source type, author, and other metadata. It can retrieve metadata directly from files like pdfs too. Further it has ability to retrieve metadata from ISBN, doi, and other identifiers. It can export these sources to really any citation style and also integrates with other software for this purpose. It has a plugin system for extras too.
I have nothing against text files on the disk but zotero is simply much better as a knowledge/source manager.
I really appreciate you sharing those! And, i can totally see the value in all of them. I think even just the one click capture via browser is immensely worth it, let alone those other features. Thanks again!
I find the discussion about whether or not NAT is a security feature or not interesting. To my mind NAT was intended to make ipv4 last longer in a clever way as address space dried up. A happy accident of this solution is a basic security feature.
Ipv6 doesn't (currently, will it ever?) have the same address space problem so each device anywhere could be globally routable. But we know that's not really a good thing security-wise. But why couldn't we implement NAT for it as a security mechanism, instead of an address space solution?
Admittedly I'm not expert so I might be talking shit.
You said it yourself. NAT was introduced to solve the address space issue. At that point firewall were already a thing.
You also acknowledged correctly that IPv6 Will botnrun into the same address space limitations.
You said NAT is not a good thing Security-wise. Then you follow up the question, why we shouldn't add that to IPv6 as a security feature. It's hard to understand the train of thought.
So let me answer this. While NAT incidently does something similar to a firewall, it is not a security feature. NAT must track any outgoing network connection in order to understand where to route incoming packets. If a packet it not a reply to an established connection, it is dropped. Otherwise the NAT must look up who opened the connection. A NAT can only work if stateful.
In a routable connection, ALL of that can be based on the static routing table.
Imagine a university with 10,000 computer, all of them having opened maybe 100 concurrent connections. The NAT must track every single connection and do a lookup for every packet.
In a routable network, it just looks up the destination IP in the packet and sends it to the next hop for the destination IP.
All while hopefully a firewall is in front of it.
So why would you want to reintroduce NAT to IPv6, when both issues are efficiently solved already?
Why would you do that when a regular default-deny firewall is and has always been the security feature you need, without the complications and problems of NAT?
Like I said I'm not expert, and was likely talking shit. I was just speculating based on the discussion in this thread.
I think the complications and problems of NAT seem to add a default layer of security to the whole thing. I know next to nothing about firewalls though, which might be the point here, but would a default deny present any problems for me that NAT would allow? That is is there a situation where as a layman I might run into problems receiving data for a valid process that wouldn't happen if it was just NAT?
A firewall is the security feature you want. With a default-deny rule, which most will come configured out of the box with, it does exactly what you expect: block all unsolicited incoming traffic.
Most people are probably actually running a firewall with NAT anyway, they just don't know it because an appliance with default-deny is pretty much install and forget for most people. So, no, it doesn't cause any additional problems.
The only difference with IPv6 is you don't need to NAT any more, but you keep the firewall.
It's important to remember NAT is part of the IP routing layer. In its regular form, a router just forwards packets to where they should be going. So it's plugged in to one or more networks, receives packets on one interface and forwards them, unmolested (well, mostly), to another interface. It's almost completely analogous to letters going through the postal system. The postal service just forwards letters around by looking at the address. It doesn't modify them in any way.
NAT is a bastardisation and is like your postie scribbles out the "return to sender" address and replaces it with his own. If you were to reply to that address, your postie would remember he did that, and replace the address you wrote with the original address he scribbled out earlier. It's not how IP routing is supposed to work at all and, in fact, a device doing NAT cannot strictly be considered a router at all.
Something you can add to any device is a packet filter. A router must not filter packets as it then wouldn't be considered a router (similar to molesting the packets with NAT). But you can insert a packet filter before things get to the router. If you glue those two things together and bundle it in one device then, voila, you have a firewall. A stateful firewall is conceptually like a packet filter and router glued together and working closely together. But you can just think of it like telling your postie "I only want to receive letters from mum" and he just burns all the rest before they get to you front door. (In reality you also want to allow correspondence so it's more like "only allow letters that are replying to letters I sent, which you'll know because you're my postie, or if mum sends a letter first, allow that too").
Writing this up makes me think... why don't we just teach this stuff using the postal system as an analogy? It's an almost perfect analogy and surely even today anyone understands this concept.
I would just like to personally thank you for you efforts. It's rare these days to see a simple solution to a problem executed effectively. I literally use your software everyday.
I first heard about this in a Graham Hancock book. Found it a fascinating example of an attempt to encode a date that far distant future generations might understand (provided it survives).
I had a really shit ass redmi phone once which was cheap.
The launcher was so slow and ass and had me wait for >10 minutes at times or be completely black which ate my god damn mind
Tried kiss launcher and it was beautiful and mostly worked like a charm on what it controlled
That being said, to manage wallpapers from kiss iirc atleast on redmi required me to do some crazy shenanigans which probably weren't worth it but none of them being kiss's fault.
I used to use nova launcher prior to kiss too and used to love nova launcher. Shame it went this path as I was seeing some kickstarter or change petition iirc to open source nova launcher which could've been so good.
On my other device I also use foss launcher which is a fork of simple-tools after it got accquired and all the issues which followed it (added ad tracking etc.)
Kisslauncher is so minimal like 300kb or something I forgot but extremely small iirc, it was wild to me to imagine an application this small. Might be smallest app I saw ever.
reply