Actually most of us work for a living and don't have the luxury of having enough money for investments to be practical in the first place, but I guess you can pretend it's necessary to get by if it makes you feel better about it.

Whatever you get for your NAS, make sure it’s CMR and not SMR. SMR drives do not perform well in NAS arrays.

I just want to follow this up and stress how important it is. This isn't "oh, it kinda sucks but you can tolerate it" territory. It's actually unusable after a certain point. I inherited a Synology NAS at my current job which is used for backup storage, and my job was to figure out why it wasn't working anymore. After investigation, I found out the guy before me populated it with cheapo SMR drives, and after a certain point they just become literally unusable due to the ripple effect of rewrites inherent to shingled drives. I tried to format the array of five 6TB drives and start fresh, and it told me it would take 30 days to run whatever "optimization" process it performs after a format. After leaving it running for several days, I realized it wasn't joking. During this period, I was getting around 1MB/s throughput to the system.

Do not buy SMR drives for any parity RAID usage, ever. It is fundamentally incompatible with how parity RAID (RAID5/6, ZFS RAID-Z, etc) writes across multiple disks. SMR should only be used for write-once situations, and ideally only for cold storage.

This is no different than anything else, we naturally appreciate the skill it takes to create something entirely by hand, even if mass production is available.

Maintaining multiple SKUs with major differences is quite expensive and time consuming, plus confusing for the customer on a global Internet trying to look things up. I expect that this would make at least some manufacturers ship these to other countries, so we would have some options.

The full details are complex but I'll give you the basic gist. The original GPL licenses essentially say that if you give somebody the compiled binary, they are legally entitled to have the source code as well, along with the rights to modify and redistribute it so long as they too follow the same rules. It creates a system where code flows down freely like water.

However, this doesn't apply if you don't give them the binary. For example, taking an open source GPL-licensed project and running it on a server instead. The GPL doesn't apply, so you can modify it and do whatever, and you aren't required to share the source code if other people access it because that's not specified in the GPL.

The AGPL was created to address this. It adds a stipulation that if you give people access to the software on a remote system, they are still entitled to the source code and all the same rights to modify and redistribute it. Code now flows freely again, and all is well.

The only "issue" is that the GPL/AGPL are only one-way compatible with the Apache/MIT/BSD/etc licenses. These licenses put minimal requirements on code sharing, so it's completely fine to add their code to GPL projects. But themselves, they aren't up to GPL requirements, so GPL code can't be added to Apache projects.

Let's actually not advocate for a different proprietary software, and instead advocate for FOSS solutions like Mumble.

Never trust corporations. If you're not profitable, they will abandon you. Only trust community-driven projects with a true open source commitment.

We shouldn't be discounting entire peoples like that. Nobody is born a nationalist. Every citizen in both countries deserves to live a life free of terror or strife, and instead they were manipulated against each other by a small number of evil people.

Nationalism is a poison and we should be seeking to cure the afflicted, both for their own sake and the sake of all of us.

The server isn't open source, so Canonical has the sole ability to control snap distribution. It's also yet another example of Canonical's "Not Invented Here" syndrome, where they constantly reinvent things so they can control it instead of working with the rest of the open source community. They also trick you into using snaps; for example if you explicitly tell it to use apt to install Firefox, it'll install it as a snap anyways.

Historically they performed really poorly as well, but my understanding is that they've largely fixed that issue.

?

Are you just anti-acronym in general?

I agree entirely. You should live ethically because it's the right thing to do, and the fact that it won't save the entire world on its own shouldn't be an excuse not to. That there's so much leftist pushback on this idea of maintaining your ethics in your personal life is really disheartening. Consumption really is a mind virus that is determined to keep you hooked, even among those who should know better.

If we can't maintain our ethics in the small bubble that is our own lives, how exactly do we intend to maintain them on a societal level? And if you don't respect nature now, why should I expect you to start respecting it after we change some laws? Start now, at least for some of it. You're gonna have to do all of this eventually anyways. So what do you have to lose?

Bad taste is when people draw attention away from the actual issues and towards making sure the language is sufficiently inoffensive and mild enough for their delicate sensibilities. This is one of the worst traits that the Fediverse has developed.