This is why it’s better to use AdGuard only for its DNS blocking capability and not for DNS resolving - use a real resolver like unbound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbound_(DNS_server)

I would advise against using unbound on the client side as this way all your DNS queries will be unencrypted and visible to your ISP. Besides that, the DNS responses can be modified, this kind of censorship is very popular and used in many countries.

IMO it is safer to use a big popular DNS recursor (google, cloudflare, adguard, quad9, etc), use DoT/DoH/DoQ and maybe add some additional filtering on top of it.

It is - GPLv3

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome/blob/master/LICEN...

No information on pricing on the site.

Not the GP, but I got a Rocketbook from my most recent workplace when I joined. Not quite a smart pen, more like smart paper - each page is grid paper with a QR code at the bottom that you scan with their app to digitise.

There are a lot more JS and Native developers compared to Flutter/Dart developers in the West. Plus fear-mongering around Google dropping development of Flutter.

Anecdotaly I've found this to be true. The cause is probably multifaceted. Some things I noticed:

- npm is legit slower in these countries

- Flutter's easy and stable toolchain and great cross-platform support counts a lot more in countries with less specialization

- lower on-disk footprint because no node_modules black hole, actually matters in countries without infinity disk size

- smaller app bundles mean less mobile data

Just some anecdotal observations, there are probably other factors too like inertia

In a similar trend, in many big American companies you can often find that in US they list front-end, full-stack and other similar js positions while e.g. C++ positions are "offshored" to the teams e.g. in India.

Riverpod does a lot more than just state management - it also handles dependency injection and reactive caching.

Here’s a great guide on using Riverpod: https://codewithandrea.com/articles/flutter-state-management...

Yes it does, and I specifically outlined that in my other article: https://dinkomarinac.dev/riverpod-simplified-lessons-learned...

His question was directed towards the state management, hence the answer only covered that.

This is exactly what the AGPL was made to combat against. But open source devs still choose more permissive licenses first - presumably to attract corporate clients to use their product (and because devs are suckers to large corporate interests)

This. They choose a permissive licence, proudly advertise it ("use us instead of our competitor because they are copyleft and we are not"), and then come whining when other competitors benefit from the very fact that they chose a permissive licence.

There are different FOSS communities that hold different values. I come from the copyleft camp because I want to advance Software Freedom objectives for end-users. Others are more interested in advancing software developer freedom, and they find the obligations that are designed to advance end-user rights are unduly burdensome to the software developer. Articles like the one on the FreeBSD website [1] explain why they take a different position

I choose to believe that both of these sub-communities of the larger FOSS community are principled in their beliefs. I don’t see whining from FreeBSD folks about competitors, or for-profit companies using all the permissions they give with their choice of license.

[1] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/

> I don’t see whining from FreeBSD folks about competitors

Sure! Then that's all good! I have nothing against the use of permissive licences (though I am on the copyleft camp too, obviously). Or put it in the public domain.

My problem is with those who do and then whine about it.

Yeah, that really grinds my gears too.

It especially bugs me when company blogs call out “abuse” when they only exist as a company because others gave them the permissions needed to build a business on software they did not author themselves!

Off-topic, but what SAS controllers are you having trouble with? Was going to get some for my NAS, would be good to get some insight on what to get and expect!

As mentioned in the other comment, the controller shipped with IR firmware, while I wanted IT firmware on it, so all drives shows up in the OS, instead of doing hardware RAID. I don't think this specific controller is more/less problematic than others, just that all the tooling around SAS seems to suck. At first I couldn't get sas2flash to work on Linux, so ended up trying to boot an UEFI shell with sas2flash.efi instead, which refused to work seemingly because of some motherboard/UEFI version/controller incompatibility.

So ultimately I used FreeDOS to finally be able to run sas2flash, so I could flash the IT firmware. Maybe I'm spoiled, but overall it's been a somewhat confusing journey.

And today I also started looking into getting LTO8 for long-term backups, probably will be even worse, judging by the docs I've gone through so far...

- mergerfs: https://github.com/trapexit/mergerfs - snapraid

Not used either but these were 2 options that came up when I was researching few years ago.

I work with Accenture devs too. I can’t say i’ve heard of that policy or experienced behaviour like that, however it wouldn’t surprise me - Accenture definitely oversell the skill level of their devs, I can totally seem them pulling that sort of stunt.