I've found that NFS gives me the best performance and the least issues. For my use cases, single user where throughput is more important than latency, it's indistinguishable from a local disk. It basically goes as fast as my gigabit NIC allows, which is more or less the maximum throughput of the hard disks as well.
A benefit of NFS over SMB is that you can just use Unix ownerships and permissions. I do make sure to synchronize UIDs and GIDs across my devices because I could never get idmapping to work with my NAS.
Story: I started a new job as a system engineer in December 1998, it was the heyday of Windows 9x and NT 4.0. First day on the job, the guy who was sitting across from my assigned desk was running something strange and insanely cool looking on a giant CRT monitor. I was mesmerized by the spinning window animations, the virtual desktops, the cool icons, the falling snow... I struck up a conversation with him, asked him what kind of system he was running there. He told me he was running Linux and this was the Afterstep window manager. Turns out he was the local sysadmin there as well as a Linux evangelist and someone I got along with instantly.
I had already been curious about Linux and wanted to try it, so he gave me a copy of Red Hat 5.1 to install on my home PC and I started my journey there. 25 years later I still run Linux, the expertise I developed with it has helped me immensely in my career and I'm still friends with my former coworker.
Don't mean to be overly combative here, but how does Debian preclude you from having to fiddle with things? Do you just like all the defaults then?
I love Debian myself, and I use it for all my personal projects where something needs to run unattended because it's rock solid, but there are still a lot of defaults that I want to change every time to make it suitable for me. Now admittedly I'm fairly opinionated about these things, but I mean, out of the box the default editor is nano (!). So as a result I created a "fiddlescript" that's a mile long and that I run on every new installation.
Ok yeah itβs much easier to get my dad to tell me heβs on βv2.12.6.001-build7F2023n12-kb0A hotfixβ
That's a false dichotomy. Firefox version numbering was never like that. It used the scheme major_version.minor_version.patch_release like almost every piece of software except browsers still uses.
The advantage of this system is that the numbers are meaningful: they tell you how significant a release is, whereas with straight versioning the version number gives you no clue about what the "119 to 120 upgrade" contains. It might be simple bugfixes, it might add some new functionality or it might be a complete overhaul that breaks everything.
The reason why browsers switched to a straight versioning scheme was never to make it easier for users to identify which release they're on. The reason was artificial version inflation (i.e. "my version is bigger than yours"), and to force users into an incessant upgrade treadmill. In the past users could for example hold back on a major release upgrade until all the kinks were worked out while still receiving maintenance for their older major release.
That would be illegal in the EU country where I live (Belgium). Here the rule is that the advertised price must always include any mandatory charges, like VAT and service charges, so that advertised price = price the consumer would have to pay.
Companies offering goods or services must indicate the price in writing in a legible, visible and unambiguous manner.
The price is the total price to be paid by the consumer, including VAT and all other taxes or services that the consumer is obliged to pay extra. These prices are stated at least in euros.
I just read about coperto here, and I don't think that was it. I'm pretty sure it said "Servizio" on the bill, and it was a percentage on top of the price of what we ordered.
I had a service charge like that added in Rome once. It is most likely illegal, but Rome is a pretty lawless place as it is where everybody tries to scam you all the time, so I didn't bother spending time arguing it and getting all worked up about a couple of euros during my holiday, just avoided the place thereafter. I know that's probably what they're counting on ...
That depends entirely on your use case, and how "devices" is defined.
For example, I run a couple of docker containers which each have their own VPN connection for different purposes. All connections originate from the same IP and run on the same physical machine even, but if they would be counted as different "devices" that would eat up the 5 device limit rather quickly.
This reminds me of the time I went home with a lesbian couple after a party, and not realizing they were interested in sex with me, even after dropping hints like repeatedly telling me things like: "You know, we've both been with men before", then while awkwardly watching a movie on their couch they started to undress eachother and make out, and one girl pulling me in to touch her body as the other girl moved to perform cunnilingus on her.
And all I could think was: oh wow I should probably give them some privacy now, I guess it's time to go home.
DefederateLemmyMl @ SpaceCadet @feddit.nl Posts 1Comments 585Joined 2 yr. ago
I've found that NFS gives me the best performance and the least issues. For my use cases, single user where throughput is more important than latency, it's indistinguishable from a local disk. It basically goes as fast as my gigabit NIC allows, which is more or less the maximum throughput of the hard disks as well.
A benefit of NFS over SMB is that you can just use Unix ownerships and permissions. I do make sure to synchronize UIDs and GIDs across my devices because I could never get idmapping to work with my NAS.