GVasco @ gvasco @discuss.tchncs.de

Reddit refugee looking for a better alternative.

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

64

Joined

2 yr. ago

Many can be easily unlocked

Hadn't thought of that!

It has bridges for most messaging services so you could use a matrix frontend for most of your messaging needs without having people on matrix so long as the server admin has set up those extensions

Using K-9 and quite liking it, otherwise just browse F-droid everything there is Foss.

I might swap bitwarden by passbolt as it uses a more recent programming stack, although vaultwarden looks to be a good alternative too.

For sure! Yeah I was just remembering that shares get mounted as a drive when you access them. So makes sense.

Great to know! Thanks!

Maybe! I'd start checking dmesg logs and check the smart info provided you do regular tests. Otherwise do some SMART tests and check the results after.

Why? They are built for datacenter environment, with the right drives for high density storage they should be just as fine as in a regular server.

Yeah I agree! Used iPhone in past, switched to android a few years back and now recently switched to /e/OS and I’m not looking back at using a Googled Android or iPhone. Considering getting a Pixel to install GrapheneOS but hate giving money to google to get a more private experience.

on an off note, use links starting with a bang “!” without the “http(s)://“ this allows users to be forwarded via their instance.

Being dyslexic I much prefer sans-serif fonts, but being able to change the font would be great! Even better include OpenDyslexic Font!

could try finding a cheap jbod

Interesting!

It's neither, it's a limitation of SMB, if you have multiple shares set-up that mount to the root of the SMB share, you can't hardlink accross them, but inside a single share in the root of the SMB share apparently it's not an issue.

Sure *are apps might not have a way of knowing but they are still limited by SMB's limitations. If you're sharing individual folders you simply can't hardlink across them. But my bad for thinking SMB didn't allow hardlink inside the same share mount point.

I think more the randomness aspect of it, comments people requesting accesses, accounts being created all around, etc...

Narcissism and confirmation bias runs rampant in our governments and top executives.

CIFS is SMB under a diferent name, and it might be that inside a share you can hardlink, but not across shares in the same filesystem.

Are you sharing the top folder holding both folders where you're creating the hardlinks or are you creating individual shares for each folder?

I guess you're right, it's just frustrating this world.