Yeah no, line voltage will kill you if you don’t know what you are doing, not to mention the fire hazard as was mentioned. The 12/24 volt used in computer systems much easier to mess around and not ‘find out’ other than maybe a fried component. Unless you are an electrician/ electrical engineer with proper training don’t open/mess with Power Supply Unit (PSU) or UPS.

One mod anyone could do is swap their lead acid for a LiFePO4. You just need to make sure the same voltage,battery quantity (larger backups often have 2 batteries in a series) and the battery dimensions are the same. They should be drop in replacements and do last longer.

That being said, I myself, do have training and if you want to waste your time I probably would mod some UPS with a car battery for longer down time support. Watched a YouTube video of a person do it to find the pitfalls for me and the issue is heat as it’s not expected to run off battery + inverter for longer than the smaller battery normally allows it maybe 5 minutes compared to like 1 hour, so several fans and heat sinks on critical components would be needed adding minor complexity and planning.

Yeah, I actually finally got rid of mine a year ago, but it never was allowed to access the Internet. Also didn’t support smbv3 when those huge issues came out so has to use custom package sources to get updates. Never buying something unless it can have open source firmware flashed any time for my NAS hardware. Using TrueNAS now on slightly old custom built PC I upgraded from.

Yes, please!

I believe you may have missed read the post or not at all.

Wait yeah can someone explain why this exploit couldn’t be used to say rewrite it to support coreboot and turn this into a good thing?

100% this.

Can you provide your /etc/fstab (I assume you are automounting) on the *arrs machine?

This. So many issues.

Why MIT license and not GPL variant?

I see your valid points. However, my point regarding backups being in a trust worthy area still stands. Idk why you would chance it by doing this. Besides that there are other reasons I will point out which I assume is their reasoning, statistically, is that Windows users tend to be a ton less savvy than Linux users, so they would be only backing up what is available on their system, and I bet on average they don’t have more than 1TB drive with maybe 300gb if storage used that needs to be backed up, like pictures which is equivalent to the 1TB a month plan which I am assuming is the cost of the windows unlimited plan. If you want to screw over companies with exploits, please do so the evil/terrible companies; otherwise this makes you look like an asshole. My 2 cents, and no I don’t work for them.

TL;DR - average windows user most likely uses no more than 300GB so offering an “unlimited plan” to them to make money on under-utilized plan makes business sense.

Awesome and hopefully they never find out as that’s against their TOS. Sticking it to the man for what? ~$20 a year, potentially losing your backups and not having any if they find out? Why would you want to potentially lose your backup service over this? Idk why but this seems dumb. The point of 3-2-1 is to reduce points of failure and you are increasing your potential of data loss by doing this.

Ext4

Could you be more specific on what issues you are having? What Debian version are you on?

This. 100% this. Ipv6 underrated.

Yeah… That probably because either the drive thought it was falling and triggered the HDD falling mechanism (often found on 2.5" hdd) which would move the arms off the disks to prevent them from hitting it and damaging the platters to unrecoverable states.

Or if done on 3.5" without this feature built into it, could just damage the platters.

Would probably be less risky to open it up and unstick the arms yourself.

Yup this was the first thing I tried. Nothing changed.

I was aware of this trick also, the first thing I tried. Nothing changed. I even tried it in 2 double double zipped freezer baggies for a week. No difference in acoustics from the drive after spin up.

However thanks for bringing this up; I forgot I tried this lol.

Yes, I understand that point. However, the point I am making is (going to make as black and white as possible, oversimplifying it on purpose):

If you’re selling a digital product (a non physical item), and use any of the following terms:

• buy (ex. Buy now, buy today, etc)
• purchase (ex. purchase now, purchase today, purchase to play, etc)
• Own (ex. Own today, own and play today, etc)
• Copy (ex. Get your copy today, your copy is waiting, we have your copy waiting, etc)

Then, I, as consumer of physical goods, being used to these types of wording meaning ownership of a copy without the ability of the manufacturer to come to my house and take the product away when they feel like or disable/remove songs, parts of movies or whatever by coming to my house and scratching off that part of the Blu-ray or DVD or whatever, should not be tricked into this by having to then read a 1000 word essay of legal speak saying you do not own what you are buying but are infact:

• Renting
• Licensing
• Borrowing
• Leasing

Said product, then that should violate some law about false advertising.

deleted by creator

Microsoft, yes but they use the wording to buy windows license for example. Game companies still use wording “buy” game. Unless they change the purchase wording, I, as a consumer, am assuming I am buying a copy of the game I can play indefinitely while I own the game.