Xanza @ Xanza @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,091

Joined

6 mo. ago

None of them are fighting the oligarchy. There are several speaking out against it right now but none have the power to fight it apparently...

One of the biggest problems with our system of government is that change has to be brought from inside. You have to use the machine to beat the machine, and it's very specifically designed that way to be as difficult as possible to change.

The linux ecosystem, depending on which distro you choose, has anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of packages. There's only select software that you can't virtualize from Windows to Linux, so you may not even be required to find alternatives.

But without listing any software at all, it's hard to tell you definitively...

That's a question for the court. It may sound cut and dry, but it's really not. In the US legal system, other people don't stop having rights just because you have rights. There are 3 entities at play here, the author of the work, the uploader, and YouTube, all of which have rights. But the author of the movie limited (intentionally) his rights by releasing the work under Creative Commons. The user has the right to upload the video to YouTube. That is not in question. The question is whether or not YouTube is beholden to the original Creative Commons license. They didn't upload the media, and the media was legally uploaded and for all intents and purposes must follow YouTube policy which is their right to monetize.

This isn't a case of someone uploading a copy-written movie and YouTube making money off of it, it's much more complex and anyone telling you different doesn't understand the actual legal issue here.

I build these professionally. For a living... Say what you want, but you're going to end up buying hardware you can't fully utilize at a premium. Period.

Violation of his own Creative Commons license. It's a tenable contract in the United States--a contract between him and viewers, creators, and frankly anyone.

He DMCA'd all versions of his movie, even the ones which were not monetized. This is not a good argument and won't hold up in court. Simple fact of the matter is, is that he violated his own license.

You're kind of missing the point. He released the film under creative commons license, specifically Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported. The license specifically says;

You are free to: share -- copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.

Which of course includes YouTube. The license cannot be revoked as long as you follow the license, and sharing to YouTube doesn't constitute breaking the license. Which means he's breaking the license.

He's very liable to be sued in this situation and he would absolutely lose.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. You're going to spend $2,000 on premium hardware because it's designed for a small form factor and to be power efficient, and it's still not going to meet all of your wish-list requirements...

The sensible choice is to upgrade your rack so you can use non-mITX boards and equipment and only spend $1,500 on equipment and actually meet your wish-list requirements.

It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Sure, you can also do this. But why not make it available to your network in addition to Jellyfin? What if you have a TV that doesn't have access to the Jellyfin app? If it's a private ZFS pool not on the network you're fucked. If you share the media via a network share, you can always do any number of things to stream that media to your TV.

It gives you a ton more options up to and including just watching the media on your PC in your favorite media browser.

TrueNAS is not absolutely required.

It just seems to be the favorite. Anything would work. OMV, EasyNAS, OpenFiler, Rockstor, even just base *nix with the appropriate packages and config.

IMO you're approaching this very wrongly. You're not looking for an mITX board. You want the performance and expansion of a thread-ripper board, for cheap, and in a small form factor--and it doesn't exist. No matter what you end up doing you will have to compromise in the mITX form factor.

Additionally, mITX x16 slots aren't always 16 lanes of PCIe. To save on space, or to compete with other manufactures, many of them are PCIe 3.0/4.0 x16 at 8x speed. Many boards that are full speed are expensive. They start at around $200. Which runs you into another problem. The number of PCIe lanes is limited by both the board and the CPU. mITX boards are designed for low power systems. They're don't have an infinite number of PCIe lanes. Usually about 16 for mITX boards... So if you have an 2x M.2 at 4x speeds, your x16 slot is limited to 8 PCIe lanes even if it has a full 16 lanes available to it, but the way that you're using it you're paying a premium for hardware you can't fully utilize. Which means even if you do use a PCIe x16 to SATA bifurcating adapter, the most you can use is 8 additional drives at 1x speed each.

Not to mention the power limitations of your mITX motherboard. You need a minimum of 25W per HDD for peak power consumption, otherwise your rig will be unstable during heavy load. That means you need a minimum of 200W just for your hard drives, not including your motherboard, CPU, onboard graphics, etc. So likely between a 350-400w mITX power supply which can be a little hard to find for mITX boards sometimes.

Frankly speaking there are a significant number of issues with what you want to build and how you're going about doing it. There's no advantage of doing an mITX build for what you need outside of size. Everything else about mITX for you is a limitation.

You'd create a ZFS pool for your shares, then a TrueNAS VM which serves your ZFS pool as NAS. Then setup your Jellyfin VM using your NAS as storage for your libraries. Ends up looking like this: https://x0.at/Gbqm.png

Your media is accessible via the network from any device because they're SMB shares, and it works just fine in Jellyfin. If you only create a ZFS pool for Jellyfin, your media can then only be accessed through Jellyfin. It limits your future options.

You can do a share any number of ways. I simply banked on the fact that anyone willing to ask the question likely doesn't know how to setup SMB shares without a GUI like TrueNAS.

More like, if you sell a gun and follow the law, you're not responsible if the person you sold the gun to murders someone...

They're an ad agency. They sell ad space. If "anti-abortion" people buy ads, that doesn't mean that Google is pushing anti-abortion. How anyone could think like that is frankly the epitome of stupidity.

It's frankly exactly as complicated as his postulated setup, only provides more flexibility. It's the best outcome.

You're not going to find an mITX board with these stats. They just don't exist. Particularly 8 SATA ports is a stretch. You may be able to find as many as 6, but not 8. If you need the extra SATA ports you can sacrafice one of the M.2 4x slots for a bifurcating SATA controller, which would allow you to add an additional 4 SATA ports--so you would have 10 SATA ports total.

Additionally, you say you want NVMe storage and "SATA for SSD" which is highly confusing. What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean M.2 NVMe slots for NVMe SSDs? If that is the case are you looking for an mITX board with 4 NVMe slots? Because frankly, they don't exist in mITX. I've never seen one and would be very surprised to see one.

Seeing 10Gb LAN and 2.5GB in the same board is pretty rare, too. If you have 10Gb LAN why do you also need 2.5Gb? 2x 2.5Gb I've seen. But a mix if 10Gb and 2.5Gb? Never seen that.

Quite frankly, you want the power, support, and room of a non mITX board in an mITX form-factor and it's not going to work out for you. It's like those pyramids with "networking," "expansion," and "RAM." Then you get to choose 2. lol.

So if you're going through the trouble of setting up proxmox, I would setup the majority of the storage in a ZFS pool for a TrueNAS SMB share/NFS share. Then create a small container just to host jellyfin and jellyfin's cache--maybe commit 10GB of storage to it--really depends on how big your media library is. Mine is about 5TB and cache, metadata, and other misc things take up about 8GB.

Setting up your share is enough for jellyfin. Since the media and jellyfin are stored on the same metal, additional latency will be sub 100ms. Create a library in Jellyfin and set it to the share; Movies: \\nas\Movies, TV: \\nas\TV, etc.

Works flawlessly and would have more utility than allocating the entirety of your storage to your jellyfin container because it functions as a normal NAS. I've been running with a setup like this for a while and it works great.

He's hoping everyone else doesn't liquidate before he can. lol He's trying to leave everyone else holding the bag.

https://www.fork.gg/

IMO, if the project is open source, no courtesy is required. Specifically if the original maintainer hasn't done anything with the repo in a decade.

Fork it, make your changes, and if you're feeling generous in the readme drop the link for the original repo giving credit to the author. Anything more than that is above and beyond.

In the case where the original upstream was being updated, how do I integrate those with my changes?

 cli

    
#> cd project.git
#> git fetch upstream
#> git merge upstream/main

  

Read more here.