Keep them memorized. The old tools just work, even if MICROS~1 tries to hide them and replace them with useless crap apps.

There – of course – won’t be a singular official source stating “Hey guys, we’re open core now”. You need to put this together bit-by-bit.

Here are some links for research

• Official statement on the takeover
• Gitea Enterprise/Gitea Cloud hiding features behind a cloud solution and a paywall which makes Gitea itself open-core
• Open Letter to the new Gitea owners with a summary and a reply, signed by a lot of Gitea devs and FOSS scene people.
• As @gratux@lemmy.blahaj.zone mentioned: A fork under the name Forgejo was done due to new Gitea owners did not care much about the concerns. (Started as asoft-fork but with 10.0 it became a hard fork.)
• Gitea owners made it mandaroy to remove copyright headers and set the corporation as copyright holder. Here, here, and here

It falls under self hosted, at least. If it is still truly open source is highly debatable.

Never heard of 99% in that list.

Also, Gitea should not be there. It is a corporate -owned open core project that was hostilely taken away from the community.

Smith & Wesson

Authentication with NPM is pretty straightforward. You basically just configure an ACL, add your users, and configure the proxy host to use that ACL.

I found this video explaining it: https://youtu.be/0CSvMUJEXIw?t=62

NPM unfortunately has a long-term bug since 2020, that needs you to add a specific configuration when setting up the ACL as shown in the video.

At the point where he is on the “Access” tab with all the allow and deny entries, you need to add an allow entry with 0.0.0.0/0 as IP address.

Other than that, the setup shown in the video works in the most recent version.

How do you handle SSL certs and internet access in your setup?

I have NPM running as “gateway” between my LAN and the Internet and let handle it all of my vertificates using the built-in Let’s Encrypt features. None of my hosted applications know anything about certificates in their Docker containers.

As for your questions:

1. You can and should – it makes managing the applications much easier. You should use some containerization. Subdomains and correct routing will be done by the reverse proxy. You basically tell the proxy “when a request for foo.example.com comes in, forward it to myserver.local, port 12345” where 12345 is the port the container communicates over.
2. 100% depends on your use case. I purchased a domain because I host stuff for external access, too. I just have my setup to report it’s external IP address to my domain provider. It basically is some dynamic DNS service but with a “real domain”. If you plan to just host for yourself and your friends, some generic subdomain from a dynamic DNS service would do the trick. (Using NPMs Let’s Encrypt configuration will work with that, too.)
3. You can’t. Every georestricting can be circumvented. If you want to restrict access, use HTTP basic auth. You can set that up using NPM, too. So users authenticate against NPM and only when it was successful,m the routing to the actual content will be done.
4. You might want to look into Cloudflare Tunnel to hide your real IP address and protect against DDoS attacks.
5. No 🙂

What is this scam and why is it still here?

I think Mozilla should focus on that. Yes. But instead they sink money in AI bullshit and other so-called “social” projects that have nothing to do with web browsers or their standards.

Focussing on the browser means focussing on web standards, too.

Maybe I’m a bit stupid, but where the fuck is the code in that repo? All files seem to be just some sort of structured meta data and stuff.

That poor IT support person:

I think the reason is stupid and it is contrary to what I expect from dockerized applications.

lolwhat

Did you miss the part where Mozilla spends most of their money for not the browser?

The money sources are not the issue. The money sinks are. An no-one ever yelled at Mozilla to offer a VPN.

Their other projects mostly exist, because those make money.

Except the projects that don’t make money.

docker ps or Portainer as a nice web-UI wrapper around the Docker commands are the two main use cases with Docker I have have on a regular basis.

No, thank you. I am not going to maintain fifty containers and fifty + X volumes for just a handful of applications and will alway prefer self-contained applications over applications that spread over multiple containers for no real reason.

Their financial reports are public.

https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/b200-mozilla-foundation-form-990-public-disclosure-ty23.pdf

See it in a broader scope. If I’d only host Lemmy with is multiple mandatory things, I couldn’t care less, but I already have some other applications that I run via Docker. Fortunately I was able to keep the footprint small, no multiple containers or volumes for one application, but as said: those exist. And they would clutter the setup and make it harder to maintain an manage.

I also stand by my point that it is counter-intuitive to have multiple containers and volumes for just one single application.

I said it elsewhere already, but the new logo reminds me of a broken OSD from a really old CRT television where the channel number wasn’t overlayed but directly added to the video stream by the tuner hardware.

They could also stop all this nonsense crap projects they sink money in without any real benefit, and focus mainly on the browser. This would give the browser likely 500% more funding than it has right now.

Have one product, but make it a perfect product.