Wait…wha?

What prompted you to reinstall your ENTIRE OS? That should almost never be necessary under any circumstances.

1. dig , learn it, love it
2. Use a phone or other device outside your network to compare results from #1

They do no such thing.

The first link explains the protocol.

The second explains WHY one would refer to client and server with regards to Wireguard.

My point ties both together to explain why people would use client and server with regards to the protocol itself, and a common configuration where this would be necessary for clarification. Ties both of them together, and makes my point from my original comment, which also refers to OP’s comment.

I’m not digging you, just illustrating a correction so you’re not running around misinformed.

It wasn’t clear where OP was trying to make a point, just that the same host would be running running Wireguard for some reason, which one would assume means virtualization of some sort, meaning the host machine is the primary hub/server.

Uhhh, nooooo. Why are all these new kids all in these threads saying this crazy uninformed stuff lately? 🤣

https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/ https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/10/html/configuring_and_managing_networking/setting-up-a-wireguard-vpn

And, in fact, for those of us that have been doing this a long time, anything with a control point or protocol always refers to said control point as the server in a PTP connection sense.

In this case, a centralized VPN routing node that connects like a Hub and Spoke is the server. Everything else is a client of that server because they can’t independently do much else in this configuration.

Uhhhh…that is…not how you do that. Especially if you’re describing routing out from a container to an edge device and back into your host machine instead of using bridged network or another virtual router on the host.

Like if you absolutely had to have a segmented network between hosts a la datacenter/cloud, you’d still create a virtual fabric or SDLAN/WAN to connect them, and that’s like going WAY out of your way.

Wireguard for this purpose makes even less sense.

Why would you run a WG Client and WG Server on the same host? Am I reading that second mark wrong?

Do you mean you’re behind a NAT and can’t forward maybe?

Tailscale or ZeroTier will work around that.

Nginx, Traefik, Caddy, HAProxy…lots of options.

Nginx and Traefik are probably the most complex if you’re not familiar with either.

HAProxy is dead simple if you solely intend to just use it as a reverse proxy.

Caddy is fairly simple as well, but slightly more complex than HAP.

If you’re not familiar with routing and VPNs in general, you may want to have a look at Tailscale or ZeroTier which use Wireguard under the hood, but making the routing dead simple, especially if you’re behind a NAT and don’t want to have to mess with ports forwarding.

Just RMA it now. If it has SMART failures, you can provide the codes and they’ll replace it no problem.

Because those are different codebases packaged differently and need access to different things in your environment.

If the developer has a public GitHub, feel free to notify them, but this is likely not treated as a bug since it’s an issue with Flatpak and your permissions. If you run the project bare and it has this same issue, then it’s still an environment issue it seems. Probably not technically a problem with their code explicitly.

You’re assuming these were previously unknown, where it’s probably more likely they’ve been found but been exploited by government agencies for awhile and just not disclosed.

If it works, then just install Flatseal and put this an environment variable for the package. Will run without issue from them on.

From the logs it looks more like an issue getting to that dbus socket, which can also be tweaked with Flatseal.

Iris is just the codename of the Intel graphics. This looks more like a permissions issue with Flatpak.

Are you saying this then works fine without problems when you export that module reference?

This guide seems pretty dated. I wouldn’t recommend most things in here anymore, honestly.

No idea what you mean with the port assignment. You can run either on whatever port you want. Most residential ISPs block incoming on 80/443 anyway.

I’d use something more modern. Wireguard at the very least, but Tailscale’s implementation of Wireguard makes things extremely flexible and simple to manage. Tailscale or ZeroTier, there’s a few of them now.

INTERESTING!!! I ran the QNX desktop way back when they first introduced for a bit. Pretty awesome for RT stuff, but unless they get some real IP building for it outside of the Auto Industry, I don’t see a general Desktop becoming super popular.

The core version would be great for audio or video production. Possibly even networking if they can modernize the kernel.