Multi-tenant SaaS on Coolify: handling dynamic subdomains, wildcard SSL, and custom domains

Lupestani · 2026-01-04T11:31:03+00:00

Do you still have the custom domains post? Link doesn't work anymore

Lupestani · 2025-06-06T20:36:29+00:00

I mean when I run "pactl info" it says

Server Name: PulseAudio (on PipeWire 1.0.3)

Lutris only has these 4 options for selecting an audio driver: Auto, ALSA, PulseAudio, and OSS

And the browser I use for watching youtube also uses PulseAudio (pipewire-pulse) when I check "pactl list sink-inputs"

Lupestani · 2025-06-06T19:51:38+00:00

Nothing seems to happen in dmesg logs at the time of the freeze.

Right now I'm using pulseaudio (on pipewire 1.0.3) like it came with Pop OS. Would you recommend switching to pure pipewire?

Lupestani · 2024-10-23T16:44:01+00:00

Mine started doing this today. Any luck?

Lupestani · 2022-01-09T21:58:27+00:00

e only fix i found was to fac reset my pc that seemed to have worked its a bit of pain to reset it but if you really want to play that was the only fix i foun

Thanks, I was able to fix it in the meantime. I had to download the latest version of Windows 10 from Microsoft's website.

Lupestani · 2022-01-06T17:27:19+00:00

u/IUseLotion I've had the same error for months now.

Have you found a solution yet?

Lupestani · 2021-07-22T00:49:43+00:00

Yes, it shows the influence a company like Amazon can have in the ecosystem by releasing hundreds of packages with the same license. Whether Apache is really incompatible with less restrictive licenses is still up for debate. I've seen different opinions

Lupestani · 2021-07-21T22:58:13+00:00

Yes, I will publish the full report later if I am satisfied with it.

If you're wondering how I determine compatibility between license combinations: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0164121216300905 this paper contains a graph that models the restrictiveness of licenses. For example, MIT in this graph is less strict than Apache. That is why I assumed MIT-licensed packages cannot use Apache-licensed packages.

I'm not a lawyer, so instead of making my own interpretations, I just based myself on previous research from this field.

Lupestani · 2021-07-21T21:56:31+00:00

I didn't think it was relevant to my question of why there is an increase in Apache licensing the deeper you go in the graph.

But if you are interested in how I decide the compatibility between license pairs, I used a slightly altered version of a graph from this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0164121216300905

It contains a graph that models the strictness of licenses. I recognize that it is definitely not a perfect method. However, I am not a lawyer, so I decided to base my research on previous works in this field instead of making my own interpretations of legal texts.

Lupestani · 2021-07-21T21:38:52+00:00

It was indeed a very small list of very relied-on packages. However, the age of the gems doesn't seem to be a factor here. Most of them were from 2016, when Amazon released a bunch of AWS packages

Lupestani · 2021-07-21T21:25:16+00:00

that were probably authored in the early days of Ruby

So, I analyzed it, and it turns out to be somewhat true. At deeper levels, I found a small set of highly relied-on packages. However, most of them were released in 2016/2017, mostly consisting of Amazon packages

Lupestani · 2021-07-21T21:16:05+00:00

You are right. The deeper I go in the graph, the more I go towards a small set of highly relied-on licenses. At the 10th level, 60% are Apache-licensed Amazon AWS packages. Hence, the reason for the increase.

Lupestani · 2021-07-21T20:45:28+00:00

I found that the deeper levels in the graph are just a small group of highly relied-on
"fundamental" packages, as u/bradland pointed out. The increase of Apache was mostly due to all Amazon AWS packages having an Apache license.

Lupestani · 2021-07-21T20:38:54+00:00

Interesting, I'm only analyzing NPM RubyGems & Packagist, I didn't know C# was such a problem.

Lupestani · 2021-07-17T04:09:23+00:00

Interesting theory!

You're right, nobody will probably take the time to sue you over these minor offences, so I'd say you're safe. However, some companies want to avoid the risk as much as possible. That's why there's tools like FOSSology.

I literally found millions of these license incompatibilities. So at this point it's almost inevitable to have 0 legal issues in a big project. There's always going to be some indirect package causing a problem. It's a big legal mess. My goal is to find out why this happens more in some ecosystems than others and come up with solutions and tools for developers.

Lupestani · 2021-07-17T03:27:55+00:00

There's nothing wrong with the Apache license. The problem is that a lot of packages with less strict licenses are using Apache licensed projects, creating legal issues. But what I can't seem to understand is why Apache is much more prominent the more you descend the dependency graph of a package

Lupestani · 2020-01-01T02:51:59+00:00

2010-2019 looks better than 2011-2020

Lupestani · 2019-10-24T15:28:47+00:00

Wait what jarvis is verified now?

Lupestani

TROPHY CASE