What's the use case for this? You can already configure different proxies to apply to different domains. The UX isn't great though, you have to use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config
Not GP, but it seems like a great idea to me. Using different proxies you can have a different IP address for each profile, making tracking more difficult.
That's a really good idea. To achieve similar result, I am currently using multiple Firefox profiles which have different proxies configured. I also have separate profiles for social media. It wouldn't be bad if they made profiles work in the same way or with similar functionality like containers work (profile per tab, each tab uses different proxy etc.).
Ideally, I'd love to have Firefox handle the whole proxying or even networking part. Like have each Firefox profile use different network gateway (useful when you want to route all network traffic trough VPN for example).
I would say it's nice enough for more than just "small" stuff. Depending on your definition of "small", I guess.
I'm running a VyOS machine (old desktop with a couple of NICs) which handles the traffic for our Copenhagen office. That's ~15 CI boxes, and 30 people. This is on a 100/100 connection.
For Ubiquiti, I'm a fan. I helped our co-working space setup a network on another floor, and we used an EdgeRouter Lite to handle the 200/200 connection. The ERL handles it without breaking a sweat. That's for 60 people on a daily basis.
For another building, I just finished setting up an ERPro (the 8-port rack-mounted version). It's again on a 200/200 connection, and for roughly 150 people on average, with a maximum around 300-500.
At home, I have an ERPoE, which handles my home lab just perfectly. I'm only on a 100/100 uplink at the moment, but will be upgraded to 1000/500 soon, and I know the ERPoE will handle that just fine as well (thank you hardware offloading ;)). 5 VLANs with full firewalling and routing between them, native IPv6 with prefix delegation, mDNS proxying between VLANs, OpenVPN handled by the router. I could do a lot of this with OpenWRT on an Archer C7, but the ERPoE is simply miles ahead.
The UI is nice for newcomers, and the CLI is amazing. I fell in love with the CLI on VyOS, and am very happy to see the same in the UBNT products. For $100, they are amazing devices. VyOS is my go-to choice when I need to have a virtual router.
are you talking about vyos or ubiquiti. Im not sure what the relationship is between them - could you talk about what's so amazing for a complete first timer?
VyOS is just software. So nothing to purchase there. It's what I use when I need either a virtual router, or want to use commodity hardware to act as a router. It's great to throw in ESXi or another hypervisor, or even EC2. It comes with all features you might need (probably), and because it's fairly standard Linux (Debian based), making it do extra things isn't very hard.
The ERL is $100, and comes with Ubiquiti's EdgeOS, which is largely based on VyOS (or something like that), and simply adds a (decent) web UI, and hardware offloading. This means that the ERL which runs on a dual core 700Mhz MIPS CPU can route 1Gbit/s, and not even break 30% CPU utilisation.
Where VyOS shines is when you need to cobble together a bunch of things. If you just need a pure firewall, I would probably stick with pfsense, as that is, after all, what it is good at. VyOS only offers iptables with some lipstick (which is well enough for a Swiss-army knife setting)
I guess VyOS would run on that box. I can't see specs, nor know what network chipset it is rocking, but I don't see why not.
The truth is though - there is no replacement for Lightroom. Digikam has the file management capabilities but the editor experience is clunky (pop out editor, edit modules require opening, no apparent easy sync of settings across images, poor noise control) and it's not the fastest app I've used. Digikam 5 is a big improvement is some ways but the editor is still very clunky to use.
ASP is just buggy. I tried it on Debian Jessie and Ubuntu 16.04 and on both it lasted a few days before simply refusing to open, even after install. It's also slow, even though they claim it's faster. And it does annoying stuff like paint its own window borders to look like a Windows app.
Darktable is the best RAW editor I've used, but it's got essentially zero file management. Batch output requires a new mental abstraction with the 'queue'. For volume work (hundreds of images at a time) it seems ill equipped as you have to create a style or copy the history stack (which doesn't seem to have an easy keyboard shortcut). I'm still working on this one as it has so much power and control it could be fantastic, but more work needs to be done on the process of the edit or you can get stuck in the editors rabbit hole of fine detail.
RAWtherapee - that's the next one to test for me. My initial feature check showed it suffers some of the complaints of Darktable like no file management (as far as I can see) and an involved edit process.
If you pair any of the above applications with gThumb you can get some of the file management back in the most LR style I have found, but (infuriatingly) gThumb doesn't seem to display images in subfolders for whatever reason.
My conclusions so far (as a former pro photographer) is that there is potential in the linux world to equal and even do better that LR but it's definitely not there yet and definitely not in one programme.
And let's not start talking about Photoshop/GIMP - which of course ISN'T photoshop, as they keep telling us.
Video editors on Linux are strikingly crappy in my experience. KDEnlive is the one I settled on and have been using for my tutorial videos for a couple of years, but it still has random crashes and some of its UI choices are questionable. But, it's the one I recommend when people ask.
Is Pitivi still written using Python to gtk bindings? I found it really really slow using Python for GUI apps, eg Ubuntu software center and every RPM took redhat rewrote every fedora release but it has been years since I've used it as I moved to macOS.
Not sure why you are being downvoted but I agree with you. I wouldn't mind if the pro version was for the assorted "addon" packs and I'd definitely contribute to the project even without using it ever, but making it the pro having a different set of icons from the free one is kinda chilling. Guess I will just stick with Material Design Icons.
I use exactly 3 extensions and hardly EVER have more than 2 or 3 tabs opened. In this scenario, using Firefox over Chrome, at least on Linux, is gruesome. The startup time is terrible, the constant stuttering and delays opening things is terrible. I wish I was able to use Firefox, I tried many times, but the performance nowadays is just subpar.
It seems a bit odd to me to ask whether the user has ever used a Linux system before, then ask which package manager they'd prefer (without an "I don't care" option).
I chose pacman, as I'm already using Arch, yet the best match for me was Debian with 87%.
