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.