Whoopsie doodle.

Is there a vote system? I’d like to vote on the next target. Looking at you, Big Tech^[1]. 👀

Thank you for a very insightful comment, touching on both technical and semantic aspects. For the uninitiated, perhaps the technical aspects of a computer are not as important as the user experience. Of course, legislators are getting more and more technically knowledgeable so trying to rebel against OS age verification by simply cosmetically making a computer different from your typical desktop like systems might not suffice…

Nevertheless, I did not know about Cage! At least now I know how the hacks make those IoT control panels with their SBCs! Perhaps I’ll set up something cool in my living room like… A weather forecast screen? The stock market? Live GPU prices? :D

My country deports eight months old infants that have no roots in any other place, so, I’m familiar with the concept…

Right. Would you say then, that trying to preemptively circumvent a yet untested law is a waste of resources and time? As in, it’s better to wait and see how authorities and courts will handle and implement the law?

Thanks! I’ll check it out!

Don’t worry and don’t mind the downvote. It took me two years, this guy https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJQJ4GjTiq5lmn8czf8oo0Q and this guy https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmU-GKiukM8LYjkJFb8oBQ to get an elementary grasp.

Tomorrow, at work, I’m gonna brag about what I have learned here today, until my colleagues’ ears fall off.

Thanks again! :)

Thank you very much! :)

Interesting why iptables behaves like that though. Because, if I understand it correctly, specifying any address between 192.168.1.[0…255]/24 will result in all addresses in that range to be accepted? So, the only way to actually single out one host is to use the mask /32…?

Sweet! Thanks for another clear explanation! Have good rest of your day! :)

If I may ask a follow up question, just out of curiosity, I did an ip a on my phone that is connected to the same router as the system whose firewal I was referring to in my original post and it gave me: inet 192.168.1.214/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global wlan0 Which to my untrained eye indicates that my phones WiFi interface has been alotted the .214 address in the /24 space/subnet.

But if I understand you correctly, this has to do with the above being routing related - how my phone reaches WAN -, while my original post was about firewalling. And when it comes to firewalling, you specify a host with a mask of /32?

Just when you think you know something about networking, it turns out you don’t know sh*t. XD

Thank you for your exquisite explanation and for immediately realizing what I had been misunderstanding!

Good question. I haven’t used custom hooks myself, but I believe you are correct. The alpm (Arch Linux Package Management) hooks manual states:

Hooks are read from files located in the system hook directory /usr/share/libalpm/hooks, and additional custom directories specified in pacman.conf(5) (the default is /etc/pacman.d/hooks).

So I guess the blog post means to say, that hooks are not supposed to be added automatically at installation of a package.

Did you need to flash with a programmer or was it installable from within the OS?

Noice. Flawless T480 experience with Arch Linux here. Also one of the last real modular ThinkPads - I swapped the storage, memory and WiFi card. It feels like a piece of hardware from 2026.

Are you not making the next Avatar movie? I came here to help because I thought… I believed… Oh, well.

Well, now I just have to try it!

I have no idea how to tell specific processes or shells to use a specific interface, while also forbidding others to use the same interface… Which is why I thought, “but I can force a container to use a specific interface! Gotcha!”

I’m almost there, I think. I managed to get my phone and my nspawn-ed wireguard interface to shake hands. I just need to tweak the forwarding and nat-ing rules in my firewall. After I touch grass. Oh, my back…

Thanks! What a sweet little handbook for getting started! :D

Thank you for the suggestion on Podman! The thing is, since the VPN is running on one of my routers (connected to eth0), and since I want the public facing interfaces (1 and 2) not to use that router, I’m going to make use of one of those two extra interfaces anyway. Either way, good advice in adding multiple addresses to the same interface!

I’d absolutely do that if I didn’t already have two extra physical interfaces. :)