Commit

ff70e70

SMB share is redone live — open step 3 'What runs' → SMB share on the preview. Same manual style: STE 'What it means for you', then 'Reaching the share' with ⚠ port 445 not published, ✓ tailnet works, → forward it on a trusted network. Not committed yet — tell me what to change.…
SMB: - No need for "not published". It's too terse and confusing. - "You browse, edit, add and remove the workspace files directly." > "The container runs a network drive." Also add notes about password. - "Reaching the share" > This can be dynamic based on settings. Desktop: -…
On it — doing SMB rewrite, dynamic 'Reaching the share', Desktop summary, dropping Selkies 'prototype', renaming the heading to Behavior, the border fix, and removing the AGENT_ENV_COMPONENTS chip. One clarify: image 1 ('UI Scaling'/'Command sends Control') isn't the configurator…
Selkies scaling fix done too: run-selkies now passes --scaling-dpi=96, which LOCKS it to 100% server-side (a single value means the client can't change it), so the phone no longer auto-picks 300%. Matches noVNC 1:1; DESKTOP_DPI still scales XFCE itself. Can't live-test without a…
Like it. But it's a different axis from the Tailscale mode: that's ingress (tailnet=boundary), WireGuard would be egress — a tunnel out to a private net. Needs NET_ADMIN + /dev/net/tun, so same 'host relaxes sandbox' tier as Docker. Use case — reaching internal services?
Ah, so it's ingress after all — a self-hosted tailnet. Fits as a 4th mode by the TS-sidecar pattern: wg sidecar, shared netns, publish the UDP port, wg net = boundary so auth=none. Cost vs Tailscale: no coordinator, you hand-manage keys+peers. Want me to spec it?
Grill Q1 (root): is WireGuard a new deployment MODE — mutually exclusive with local/domain/tailnet, i.e. it IS the boundary — or a component layered on another mode? My rec: a 4th mode. Like the tailnet it sets PUBLIC_URL, port layout, and auth=none default. Agree?
Hmm, not sure if we can modularize them like we did components. Like: + expose + port mappings + Caddy ingress + Tailscale + Wireguard what do you think
Blocker to free checkboxes: the network namespace. Tailscale & WireGuard each work by the app sharing the sidecar's netns — you can share only one. So the VPNs can't stack with each other, nor with host port-mappings. Only Caddy-vs-raw-expose is a cleanly separable layer, and…
Two axes, not N checkboxes. AXIS A — L3 reach (pick ONE; it owns the netns): - loopback: 127.0.0.1 only, bring your own proxy - published: host port mappings on 0.0.0.0 - tailscale: sidecar, tailnet = boundary - wireguard: sidecar, wg net = boundary…
axis A missing 'none'? for Dokploy-based hosting

commit ff70e70

Good catch — yes. Call it 'internal': no host ports, container exposed only on the compose network; Dokploy's Traefik (or any sibling proxy) joins that net and does ingress+TLS. It's distinct from loopback: loopback = a proxy on the HOST, internal = a proxy in a CONTAINER on the…