hendrik

Thx! That’s the video decoding page, though. The thing that decodes the video stream and makes individual images from the stream, for the actual processing. Seems the thing that does inference / object detection is called OpenVINO.

https://docs.frigate.video/configuration/hardware_acceleration_enrichments

I think you mean SyCL or Vulkan, OpenCL or oneDNN… QuickSync is just video de- and encoding.

Aren’t diffusion models and LLMs (ollama) too big for an external NPU? As far as I know something like a Coral runs specific models only. And it’s limited to the 1 or maybe 2GB of memory on it. It’d do tasks like voice recognition, or image classification. But not generate images or text.

If you want to run arbitrary AI models and generative AI, I think you should be looking for a graphics card?!

You should probably have a look at the software you intend to run and see what kind of external NPU they support. I’m aware of Frigate for example which leverages hardware acceleration to classify camera surveillance footage. Guess their community knows which stick to get. Or you’d have a look at the frameworks which package machine learning models for inference on some NPU and have a look at their table of supported hardware.

Isn’t both exactly the other way round?

The license (EUPL-1.2) specifically talks about redistributing either the source, or executable files. (see definition of original work, also distribution.) Nowhere do they mention a service running the work comes with any kinds of obligations? I just can’t find any single sentence in the license text covering SaaS…

Both “Copyleft clause” and “Provision of source code” are pretty clear as well. It’s only about distributing copies of the work. Not running it and providing it as a service.

And regarding the compatible licenses, they say the other one wins. At least regarding the “obligations”. However that’s defined and whether it’s the licensor’s or licensee’s obligations:

Should the Licensee’s obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with
his/her obligations under this Licence, the obligations of the Compatible
Licence shall prevail.

And next question: Isn’t that what the AGPL does but the specific variant of the EUPL they picked for their reticulum project doesn’t even do?

Edit: And furthermore, it’s no even as strict as the GPL because everyone is allowed to redistribute it under the terms of the LGPL?

I don’t really know, either. “driver-level VLAN” is the terminology the OpenWRT wiki (linked) uses. Seems OP went for the strategy at the bottom, with going to the bridge settings and make it add a new interface. What I’ve done before, and what that article talks about at the top is, go to the Switch settings instead, and set the port to the corresponding VLAN, or to keep the tags… But maybe I misremember what I did and which settings I touched… Yet it seems to me those are two distinct ways of doing it. Either on the switch hardware inside of the OpenWRT device, or inside of the software bridge in OpenWRT.

https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/vlan/switch_configuration

Interesting. Any reason to prefer the driver-level VLANs over the hardware switch? That’s how I’ve done it in the past, and also how the linked wiki article starts.

Yeah, I think it’s a bit sad it has to be like this… But it is what it is… I once moved and asked my neighbours if I could use their Wifi for a month, and that was basically their answer. Just that I wasn’t some internet stranger, but a regular stranger living nextdoors.