In Linux everything is a file. So modifying files is all you really need. The hardest part is how to handle mobile endpoints like laptops, that don’t have always on connections. Ansible pull mode is what we were looking at in a POC, with triggers on VPN connection. Note we have a large Linux server footprint already managed by ansible, so it isn’t a large lift for us.
Tried this at work and discovered it only really works on vscode and probably eclipse. Other IDEs claimed support but it was found to be unusable.
I do agree mostly with your point here, but I think you can limit the scope a bit more. Mainly provide a working build environment via one of the mentioned tools, since you will need it anyway for a ci/cd pipeline. You can additionally have a full development environment that you use available for people to use if they choose. It is important that it be one regularly used to keep the instructions up to date for anyone that might want to try to contribute.
From my observations as a sys admin, people tend to prefer the tools they are familiar with, especially as you cross disciplines. A known working example is usually easy to adapt to anyone’s preferred tooling.
The lack of version is the problem. Syntax has changed over time, so when someone finds or has an older compose file, there is no hint it won’t work with the current version of docker-compose until you get errors and no graceful way to handle it.
Compose doesn’t have a versioned standard, it did for a bit iirc, which also means you can’t always just grab a compose file and know it will always just work.
Most self hosted works fine with giant all in one containers, even for complex apps, it’s when you need to scale you usually hit problems with an all in one container approach and have to change.
It’s anything acidic from what I have found/read, the pamphlet that comes with mine mentions it. You can get a strong and longer lasting effect if you take calcium carbonate (aka antacids) around the same time.
The main benefits to paying for certs are
The only thing that matters to most people is that they don’t get cert errors going to/using a web site, or installing software. Any CA that is in the browsers, OS and various language trust stores is the same to that effect.
The rules for inclusion in the browsers trust stores are strict (many of the Linux distros and language trust stores just use the Mozilla cert set), which is where the trust comes from.
Which CA provider you choose doesn’t change your potential attack surface. The question on attack surface seems like it might come from lacking understanding of how certs and signing work.
A cert has 2 parts public cert and private key, CAs sign your sites public cert with their private key, they never have or need your private key. Public certs can be used to verify something was signed by the private key. Public certs can be used to encrypt data such that only the private key can decrypt it.
The before first unlocked state is considered more secure, file/disk encryption keys are in a hardware security module and services aren’t running so there is less surface for an attack . When a phone is taken for evidence, it gets plugged into power and goes in a faraday bag. This keeps the phone in an after first unlock state where the encryption keys are in memory and more services that can be attacked are running to gain access.