GVasco

Not if modern proof of ownership technologies are implemented, such as NFT smart contracts.

That’s why NFT’s were created, but now that people link NFT’s to dumb ass pictures, I wonder how if ever it’ll make it as proof of ownership.

That’s exaxtly what I was thinking

Disagree, this is one of those changes that not only is very hyginic but also has a juge impact on reducing the amount of work for staff.

I won’t disagree however that they could still have menus available for the instances people don’t have a smartphone or are having problems with their smartphone. However, overall the impacts are mostly positive aside from incoviniencing the customer slightly to look at the menu on their phone.

Sucks that vendors can keep such a tight control on what you can do with your device. Would be nice to have the possibility to safeguard your device with any OS of your choice.

Omg!

Even when using another OS? Been trying to find info on relocking my /e/ OS install on my 1+7P and haven’t had any love luck.

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.

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.