Setting the default gateway is unnecessary for a network of peers that are already on the subnet. It can only lead to problems as the hosts try to send every request outside their network to 169.254.1.1, which doesn’t even exist in this scenario
The poster you’re replying to is suggesting a static IP in the apipa range, not an apipa assigned ip. You’d already know a static IP because you set it yourself.
It was a server for an irl streamer so I expected it to be toxic. I did not expect that level of toxicity. A bunch of untreated sociopaths.
deleted by creator
I reported a server where the users harassed, both online and offline, a trans woman who later killed herself. Then they made memes about her death. Discords ‘safety team’ suggested I talk to the server admin (who was part of the abuse) and closed the ticket.
Technically true but I wouldn’t suggest using a self signed cert on the internet under any circumstances.
Absolutely do not expose your server on port 80. Http is unencrypted, you’d be sending your login credentials in plaintext across the open internet. That is Very Bad™. If you own a domain name, you can set up a letsencypt cert fairly easily for free. Then you could expose 443 and at least your traffic will be encrypted in transit. It won’t solve the other potential issues of exposing your instance like brute force or ddos attacks, but I’d consider it a bare minimum.
If you use a VPN like many others are suggesting it won’t matter as much because the unencrypted traffic never leaves your local network.
Wireguard installation is going to be much more secure than a Nextcloud
I understand that, and it’s a good suggestion and a better solution if it fits the OPs use case. I don’t understand suggesting they do both. Either VPN or port forwarding solve the problem, doing both seems unnecessary.
before you start forwarding ports on your router
Don’t you mean instead of? If all the OP wants to do is access next cloud, they can do it over the VPN without forwarding ports. What you’re suggesting doesn’t solve the problem of port 80 being an attack vector, and adds yet another attack vector (the VPN itself)
You must get a lot of flies in your mouth
Idk if you can Google but you sure as fuck can’t shut up
That would be some pretty intense inflation yeah
McDonald’s has a latte for $1 and Dunkin donuts has one for $2.65. It’s not an economy problem. It’s probably a pretty good latte. I dunno, never tried it, $12 is too much for sugar coffee.
No, that is an example of an appropriate problem to solve with regulation. “If something I exists I must buy it and that is the vendor’s fault” is not.
I’ve learned that there’s a huge number of people on lemmy who prefer government regulation to self control. I had an argument with a guy the other day who wants $12 lattes banned instead of simply not buying them. Apparently making something available is the same as putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it.
allowing them to hoover up our data
Hate to break it to you, but the fediverse is public. Most instances don’t even require an account for read-only access. If Facebook wants your data they don’t need to federate to get it.
Twitter used to be in much better shape financially before musk took over but implying that it was ever “great” is a bit of a stretch
You would not. In the example given 169.254.1.1 doesn’t even exist, no machine is listening on that address so it couldn’t possibly do any good if it wanted to