Free VPN

[Chipstak]

Was looking for a free VPN that doesn't have a monthly data limit...

Any recommendations ?

 

[mikedt]

Psiphon, is what I use sometimes.
https://www.psiphon3.com/en/download.html


No data limit AFAIK, although it can get rather slow at peak times. Also with Psiphon, unlike other "free" VPNs, their privacy seems to be good.

 

[Samuel Martin]

Why would you possibly want a Free VPN besides the fact they are free? Aside from the security concerns, free VPNs can turn using the internet into a massive headache, with slow speeds, constant pop-ups, and restricted streaming. You can however go for paid VPNs that offer free trials. I recently signed up for Ivacy VPN 7 day trial and it came along with all the features a premium service comes with.

 

[The_Chief]

When looking for, or using, something that is free, it's important to remember what Grandma used to say:

The only free cheese is in the mousetrap.

Nothing is free. It may be no-cost to the user, but that VPN costs money to operate. And they are making money off you somehow... probably in data collection and sales. That's what Google and Facebook do: all that massive data is sorted and a micro-detailed profile of each user is sold to whoever will pay for it. Why? Targeted advertising - or, as they like to call it, a "more personalized experience".

That's not a bad thing if you don't mind tons of companies knowing everything about you... but it's vital to keep in mind that if you use any product for which you are not paying, YOU are the product.

 

[Chipstak]

Tru Tru

 

[MoodyBlues]

I agree with the gist of your post, @The_Chief, but want to touch on this:

if you use any product for which you are not paying, YOU are the product.

Not always true!

As a Linux-only person, I feel compelled to say that sometimes free really is free. [And when it comes to Linux, also vastly superior. ]

Never in ≈three decades have I been the 'product' as a result of using Linux--which is free in every sense of the word. I happily choose to donate regularly to various organizations, to thank and support them for the excellent products I rely on, including Kubuntu Linux.

The open source revolution proved that quality software needn't cost an arm and a leg, and trap you by perpetually needing to pay for upgrades or licenses.

But to back up your point, when it comes to Android, I almost exclusively use paid apps. That's because I can't tolerate ads or other intrusive crap that go along with many free ones, plus I really like supporting talented developers. If I needed a VPN on Android, it wouldn't be a free one rife with ads, and doing who-knows-what behind the scenes!

 

[The_Chief]

Linux IS an exception, not the rule. Yes, it's the result of massive collaboration of programmers. However, there are very few Linux programs that have a ubiquitous file extensions like .doc and .xls - YES there are converters and emulators and simulators... so enjoy your FREE stuff! Most people, however, are at the mercy of Big Tech: and all they (we) can do is minimize their intrusion into our lives.

 

[MoodyBlues]

there are very few Linux programs that have a ubiquitous file extensions like .doc and .xls

That's because there's no such thing as 'file extensions' in Linux. At least not originally.

I started on UNIX in the '80s, and file names could contain any character, including non-printables [which could cause big problems for sysadmins], but the general convention was to use 'regular' characters--including dots. So these were [and still are] perfectly good names:

June.20.2020.11.38.00.am
this_is_a_text_file
fstab.original
.profile

and so on. Unlike idiotic DOS, *nix actually determines a file's type, rather than use its 'extension' to tell it what it is. The venerable 'file' command, run in a directory full of files [with no silly 'extensions'], spits out exactly what type of file each one is.

As I recall it [and I could easily be wrong], it wasn't until the Internet became widely accessible, and files like images and videos started being widespread, that 'extensions'--such as .jpg .mp3 .gif--became part of my world.

Today, Android apps that I really like, and paid for, irritate the hell out of me when I'm on a network drive, and try to open this_is_a_text_file, and--having been programmed by window$ users--prompt for what to open it with.

 

[Trom]

Linux IS an exception, not the rule. Yes, it's the result of massive collaboration of programmers. However, there are very few Linux programs that have a ubiquitous file extensions like .doc and .xls - YES there are converters and emulators and simulators... so enjoy your FREE stuff! Most people, however, are at the mercy of Big Tech: and all they (we) can do is minimize their intrusion into our lives.

I sometimes bring home Excel spreadsheets from work to tweak or modify them on my Linux computer using Libre Office. Even fairly complex files with macros are no challenge to Libre. I remember when the kids were in school, they used Word in class.. I remember once when I realized that my daughter had no idea that she was using OpenOffice at home, and not Word.

 

[mikedt]

Linux IS an exception, not the rule. Yes, it's the result of massive collaboration of programmers. However, there are very few Linux programs that have a ubiquitous file extensions like .doc and .xls - YES there are converters and emulators and simulators... so enjoy your FREE stuff! Most people, however, are at the mercy of Big Tech: and all they (we) can do is minimize their intrusion into our lives.

Maybe in the past it was that, if you were using MS Office 2003 on Windows XP or something. These days the default file extensions are things like .docx, .xlsx, and .pptx (Open XML Format). And there's quite a few Linux office suites can use them, like WPS Office, LibreOffice, OpenOffice, etc. No "converters and emulators and simulators" required.

FTIW there is Big Tech that gives away a lot of free stuff. e.g. Google and Android(which is a Linux OS).

 

[mikedt]

That's because there's no such thing as 'file extensions' in Linux. At least not originally.

I started on UNIX in the '80s, and file names could contain any character, including non-printables [which could cause big problems for sysadmins], but the general convention was to use 'regular' characters--including dots. So these were [and still are] perfectly good names:

June.20.2020.11.38.00.am
this_is_a_text_file
fstab.original
.profile

and so on. Unlike idiotic DOS, *nix actually determines a file's type, rather than use its 'extension' to tell it what it is. The venerable 'file' command, run in a directory full of files [with no silly 'extensions'], spits out exactly what type of file each one is.

As I recall it [and I could easily be wrong], it wasn't until the Internet became widely accessible, and files like images and videos started being widespread, that 'extensions'--such as .jpg .mp3 .gif--became part of my world.

Today, Android apps that I really like, and paid for, irritate the hell out of me when I'm on a network drive, and try to open this_is_a_text_file, and--having been programmed by window$ users--prompt for what to open it with.

File extentions to tell the OS what type of file is it, is really something from the 60s and 70s isn't it, with mainframes, minicomputers, and 8-bit, like CP/M. Commodore 64, etc.

 

[MoodyBlues]

File extentions to tell the OS what type of file is it, is really something from the 60s and 70s isn't it, with mainframes, minicomputers, and 8-bit, like CP/M. Commodore 64, etc.

All I can say is that UNIX, when I started in the 1980s, had no such thing as extensions; file names were just file names, as in my earlier examples.

'fstab.original' does not consist of the file name 'fstab' and the extension 'original'--its entire file name is 'fstab.original' plain and simple.

How things worked prior to UNIX, I really can't say, but am interested in learning.

 

[Trom]

All I can say is that UNIX, when I started in the 1980s, had no such thing as extensions; file names were just file names, as in my earlier examples.

'fstab.original' does not consist of the file name 'fstab' and the extension 'original'--its entire file name is 'fstab.original' plain and simple.

How things worked prior to UNIX, I really can't say, but am interested in learning.

And you can mark any file as being executable. I make little utilities at work to automate some things, using Python and TCL, but the scripts need to be called by batch files as windows doesn't work the shabang way.

 

[mikedt]

All I can say is that UNIX, when I started in the 1980s, had no such thing as extensions; file names were just file names, as in my earlier examples.

'fstab.original' does not consist of the file name 'fstab' and the extension 'original'--its entire file name is 'fstab.original' plain and simple.

How things worked prior to UNIX, I really can't say, but am interested in learning.

I know UNIX was invented at Bell Labs in 1969, and I'm using a UNIX now, MacOS. But the first computer I ever used myself was at school in 1979, a Research Machines 380Z with Z80 CPU that ran CP/M,. On that there was file extensions, like .CMD for command files, .BAS for Basic programs, .DOC for document files, etc. During the 80s I had a Commodore 64, and that had things like .PRG for program files. Also when I was at college starting in 1980 I had an account on the Prime 850 time-share minicomputer that was at the local university, with remote terminals. And I can still remember .FOR for Fortran, .PAS for Pascal source code files. Built my first PC in 1989, an XT machine running DR-DOS.

I didn't actually know much about Linux until about 1998 probably, when I tried to install Slackware from a book and CD-ROM called Slackware Unleashed, but I never did get it "unleashed" Later on I used Linux Mandrake for a while.

 

[MoodyBlues]

And you can mark any file as being executable.

Exactly! I had never heard of anything so stupid as DOS/window$ programs requiring the .exe 'extension.' In *nix, a file named some_file.exe could be a daily calorie journal text file.

 

[MoodyBlues]

During the 80s I had a Commodore 64, and that had things like .PRG for program files.

You're absolutely right--and I had completely forgotten about that. I think of my real computing life starting in 1985, when I first laid hands on UNIX. My C64, and VIC20, before it, were more like fascinating playthings, and the only 'programming' I did was typing the sample programs from the manual. Today, I have ZERO recollection of the names I gave them when storing them on the attached tape recorder.

I didn't actually know much about Linux until about 1998 probably, when I tried to install Slackware from a book and CD-ROM called Slackware Unleashed, but I never did get it "unleashed"

Oh, goodness! Slackware, circa 1998, was for über-*nix geeks! If only you had tried one of the other distros instead--you would've gotten them 'unleashed' and had a blast!

Some time before I got sick...I think maybe 7-8 years ago, I installed Slackware on a new laptop, just to see what it was like now. As I recall, it was smooth and easy, as any modern Linux should be. I did choose its advanced options, as is my habit, because I have a very specific partitioning scheme I've used for decades, across all my computers. But it was all basically very straightforward. [Then I put my real distro on it.]

 

[Trom]

During the 80s I had a Commodore 64, and that had things like .PRG for program files.

Funny how this thread has turned into a reminiscing fest. I wrote a BBS for the C64 in basic after I bought a modem that could actually answer the phone as opposed to dialing the phone, and then unplugging the cord to the receiver and plugging it in to the modem,which ran at a blazing 300 baud.

 

[mikedt]

This thread has also turned into, gratis versus libre definitions of FREE

Gratis - free beer - free VPNs
Libre - free speech - Linux and open source software.

 

[MoodyBlues]

Funny how this thread has turned into a reminiscing fest.

Nice, right?! I love reminiscing, and I also love thread drift--it's more like talking in real life.

I wrote a BBS for the C64 in basic after I bought a modem that could actually answer the phone as opposed to dialing the phone, and then unplugging the cord to the receiver and plugging it in to the modem,which ran at a blazing 300 baud.

300 baud? That predates my first modem, a 2400 baud sucker that, when used to connect to the server in my office at work [via Wyse 60 terminal], spit out lines character by character. It was tantamount to watching grass grow. Aw, the good old days! (I do actually remember that time very fondly.)

 

[Trom]

Nice, right?! I love reminiscing, and I also love thread drift--it's more like talking in real life.

300 baud? That predates my first modem, a 2400 baud sucker that, when used to connect to the server in my office at work [via Wyse 60 terminal], spit out lines character by character. It was tantamount to watching grass grow. Aw, the good old days! (I do actually remember that time very fondly.)

Had to do this, pulled out a few blasts from the past