An inbound only DNS forwarding rule would be pointless. All DNS queries should be originating from within the network.

EDIT

I think I see what you’re getting at. Assuming that the firewall is running on the NAS vs on the router.

The OP doesn’t specify, but I would assume the firewall rule would be on the router, as that makes the most sense to force all DNS requests on the network to go through the pihole.

As someone who took the plunge years ago, you just have to accept that some programs will just be unusable. There are likely alternatives, though very few will be ‘drop in’ replacements so to speak. So there will be a learning curve.

It’s the price you pay to have full control of your system. As time goes on, it gets easier.

On one hand, I get it. You’re used to Windows and want to use an environment you’re used to and apps you’re comfortable with.

On the other, you need to be aware that you’re going to be constantly fighting an uphill battle. Microsoft doesn’t care that you don’t want those programs using resources, they’re going to install them because it’s in the best interest of their shareholders. The programs might be able to be removed using third party tools, but then you’re relying on random tools found on the internet to remove bits of your operating system without hurting anything or doing anything malicious.

The data these programs gather is more valuable to Microsoft than the blowback because this is the exact stance people will take: sure it sucks that this is being forced upon me, but it’s still better than leaving. So I’ll either deal with it (99% if users are here) or ill find a random program and cross my fingers it does only what’s on the label.

The only solution I see is to swap to something else, causing Microsoft to lose market share and thereby convincing shareholders not to force this on users.

The choice is yours.

I agree.

So the solution, OP, is to set the DNS settings on your NAS to your router’s internal IP so the firewall can redirect the traffic to your new port.

I don’t think anyone is advocating for turning a blind eye to Mozilla. I think the argument being made is that a monoculture for browsers is a concern that can outweigh some blunders Mozilla makes.

I’m old enough to remember what a shit show ActiveX was for web security.

The beauty of Lemmy is the federation. Don’t like how an instance is being moderated? Make your own.

Nothing made by humans will ever be perfect, but at least with Lemmy the control isn’t in the hands of a megacorp trying to profit from us.

If you win the house and Senate with a majority then, you remove those that are extremely corrupt.

Democrats would need a supermajority in the Senate to achieve that. Anything less than 2/3rds and nobody gets removed.

Does this mean deep water planets? Or will they still be basically a shallow planet wide lake?

I can’t help but see it as the foot in the door.

I understand that Mozilla needs money, but I can’t make everyone who uses Firefox commit to donating money to keep them from having to do things like this to stay afloat. But them going down this path makes me not want to donate at all.

I never said I was, just that I wanted to support the browser that respects my privacy, and this move is making me reconsider it.

As long as it’s open source someone will be able to find a way to turn it off, either by an addon or by patching and compiling the source code.

IMO, that’s splitting a hair.

For a browser that supposedly respects user privacy, the fact that this is opt-out rather than opt-in really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I’m going to reconsider my monthly recurring donation to Mozilla, especially if they keep this up.

The power to make laws, like codifying Roe vs Wade, lies with congress.

I’m peeved about the SC ruling too, but they didn’t unilaterally hand over all governmental power to the executive.

Because the president had unilateral authority to make laws, right?

Nevermind Mitch McConnell standing up in the senate and saying they’d refuse to cooperate with Obama, it’s Obama’s fault.

Windows is way more documented. Not necessarily by Microsoft but by the absolute waste community.

If I had a nickle for every BSOD error code I researched only to find “have you tried running sfc /scannow? What about a refresh? You tried both and nothing worked? Just reinstall!”

More documented my ass. Linux at least tells me what’s wrong. “No space left on device” or “missing dependency” is way better than “Error code 0x0000007e”

So often just swapping the user agent from Firefox to Chrome makes these sites work flawlessly. So they’re putting in extra code to detect Firefox and serve a “we don’t support your browser” page when they could just… not. And if a user complains about X, they could say we don’t test on Firefox, try on Chrome.

The founding Fathers likely couldn’t imagine a Congress that wouldn’t impeach a Supreme Court Justice for such flagrant self-enrichment. But they were thinking about Congress as a more ideological body rather than a political entity. They couldn’t imagine Justices being aligned with political bodies; that was part of the idea of a lifetime appointment. Put someone in a job for life and they should be immune from partisan political bullshit from the outside.

They couldn’t envision justices who would trade everything for a lifetime appointment to support their preferred political flavor.

IMO, the solution is to let every President nominate a new SC justice, and retire the oldest one every election.