There is nothing to refurbish in drives. They are just second hand devices. You can check if they are fine pretty easy and you need to take a look at the age (power on hours). I replace drives at 50k-60k hours, no matter if they are fine.
If you break trains programmatically (by software) you’re an industrial saboteur.
That’s much worse than to hack them to work again.
Most of these observations are subjective. I’ve had some Seagate drives that worked well but were very hot and wasted energy. On the other hand WD was crap so far, starting with 3 TB. Not because of quality, but because of power saving features that were a major annoyance to me (green and some blue drives). Red drives I had were mostly fine, even they wore out pretty quickly (Load_Cycle_Count bugs). They ran at 0% health left for a few years and had other awful SMART and on-drive controller bugs.
Since Seagate and WD are essentially the same company and they lied about SMR before, I wouldn’t buy either of them.
I’ve seen someone using Adobe Acrobat just for splitting PDF documents.
Isn’t it a regression? I cannot upgrade Debian unstable, either, at the moment. Last time when LLVM had a major upgrade, it took weeks until it was fixed.
So you change your towels every time? Otherwise when you start again, the last time you used it, you wiped your butt with it.
Spoiler: No it isn’t.
I’ve always built my own PCs. And from my experience, it’s worth not to be cheap on the parts. There is always a sweet spot or a special offer and the biggest task is to find it for each part.
If you’re going to be cheap, you’ll build a PC that lasts ~2 years.
Are you looking for something like cached credentials?
touch 'C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32'
Read above please. You cannot import GPL code into BSD licensed code without restricting the code distribution. In the other direction, you can do it and just add a notice about the license. It does not add restrictions to the distribution. Otherwise Linux distributions wouldn’t even have OpenSSH in base install images.
Of other software, yes. For example Linux distributions can use the BSD or MIT licensed code without any problems.
But it does not allow to remove the license from the software.
On the other hand GPL code cannot be imported into BSD code without introducing restrictions.
If you think about how many people use proprietary Android by Google, it is exactly comparable.
Comparing numbers is pointless here. Fact is that GPL has more conditions when you’re allowed to use and modify the code. More conditions means more restrictions. And this means, less freedom.
At the moment large companies sponsor the development, without being forced to do so. And they allow developers to spend time on the project for free.
The foundation also makes sure that devs sign an agreement otherwise the code is not accepted.
So where is this all proprietary?
So it’s an argument against restrictive licenses? The more freedom the better? I mean Unix in this case had a too restrictive license?
Hi. Nobody here. Do you know that if you own a PS5 or Nintendo Switch, you’re a FreeBSD user?
Maybe we’ve got a different idea what it means to be a user.
I think they are just expecting that the upper management generates code using AI and the coders will try to fix it to get it to work.
They don’t block torrents because they like to watch people connect to the nodes and then sue them.
It’s always better to use onion routing.
Many manufacturers offer product sheets. You can also use price comparison websites. They sometimes offer an easy way to look at the specs or even compare them side by side.
You’d actually need an apricote in your pants.