@TeleFox said in Anyone here? I think I am just seeing spam?:

@EddieJennings I hear you mine has as well, but wanted to check and see how things were going and surprised to see how much has disappeared. I guess it makes sense though.

Yeah, it's amazing how much it died down. PErsonally, my guess is when every group started getting shadow groups. Here, the people who were talking a lot moved to a Telegram group which being private and unmoderated got toxic and racist fast. I left because of the over the top personal attacks and racism. It was not fun. Once groups aren't fully public, things can go south a lot easier.

Same thing happened for the expat group that I mentioned. We WERE on a WhatsApp group and two or three bad apples made it non-viable. So moved to something like this instead to keep people civil. And to keep it from being a secret club.

@EddieJennings said in Anyone here? I think I am just seeing spam?:

@DustinB3403 True. Much of my message board participation has fizzled out over the years.

I feel like the CONCEPT has mostly died out. But that said, I just started a new one for Expat Life in Nicaragua as there isn't any viable place for people to discuss that stuff.

@TeleFox said in Anyone here? I think I am just seeing spam?:

Haven't checked in here in a while. What's new. Scott you around?

I am, but have been down with pneumonia for a bit. Actually doing quite a bit of work to prepare for a major forum update coming any day!

@IThomeboy80 said in Linux: flatpak vs apt / apt get:

APT is old-school, system-level, and tight. Flatpak is modern, sandboxed, and chunky.

I wouldn't characterize as old-school vs. modern. Flatpak is based on an older technique before things like APT existed. APT and its ilk were designed as a response to the chunky systems of the past allowing for more efficient shared resources and better patch visibility.

@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Trying to figure out why ML has gotten so slow. I think we are getting hammered by bots, but I'm not sure. It's very odd behaviour.

Yeah, I was thinking that myself and then I started to question if maybe it was just my home network.

CPU(s) are at 100%, the DB log is going crazy. Started maybe two days ago. It's real queries.

Maybe the AI bots are finally getting some GOOD inputs?

I'm thinking maybe. Would actually be nice to have them trained on something real for a change.

We've been using Deepin as part of our desktop strategy since 2017. It's very good.

@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Trying to figure out why ML has gotten so slow. I think we are getting hammered by bots, but I'm not sure. It's very odd behaviour.

Yeah, I was thinking that myself and then I started to question if maybe it was just my home network.

CPU(s) are at 100%, the DB log is going crazy. Started maybe two days ago. It's real queries.

Trying to figure out why ML has gotten so slow. I think we are getting hammered by bots, but I'm not sure. It's very odd behaviour.

@DustinB3403 GOod morning!

@scottalanmiller doing some work on the future of MangoLassi

I almost always use the native tools FlatPak is heavier and CAN have interaction problems with the OS and you are 100% dependent on the packager for updates.

APT relies on the OS components for patching and updates mostly. If the APT REPO is from the OS vendor, they maintain patching and compatibility for you. If a third party repo, the job is split between the OS vendor and the package manager.

We have SEVEN cats now!

@travisdh1 my daughter needs that

@DustinB3403 imagine living where they are actively threatening to invade!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Got this error when adding new websites to an Nginx host:

[warn] : could not build optimal server_names_hash, you should increase either 
server_names_hash_max_size: 512 or server_names_hash_bucket_size: 64; 
ignoring server_names_hash_bucket_size

Basically, that warning means nginx has too many / too-long server_name entries now, and the internal hash table it uses to match hostnames is too small. The default config is to keep the hash table quite small.

You don’t need to change any of your site configs — you need to adjust global nginx hash settings.

On Ubuntu, the config file is /etc/nginx/nginx.conf

You should increase one or both of these directives:
• server_names_hash_max_size
• server_names_hash_bucket_size

They go in the http {} block, not inside a server {} block.

The following example settings will double the default values and likely allow you to grow for a while. Increase as needed...

http {
    server_names_hash_max_size 1024;
    server_names_hash_bucket_size 128;

    ...
}

@dbeato said in Zoho Email Free SMTP Sending Limits:

@scottalanmiller I see, you wanted transparency.

Yes, we have people who use it (without telling us) and then expect us to troubleshoot why "it worked yesterday and today we can't send emails", we had to spend a lot of our resources and Zoho's to get someone to disclose that the system DOES work sometimes (we thought it never worked) but that there are all these reasonable, but secret, limiters on it.

@dbeato said in Zoho Email Free SMTP Sending Limits:

@scottalanmiller I see, you wanted transparency.

Yes, we have people who use it (without telling us) and then expect us to troubleshoot why "it worked yesterday and today we can't send emails", we had to spend a lot of our resources and Zoho's to get someone to disclose that the system DOES work sometimes (we thought it never worked) but that there are all these reasonable, but secret, limiters on it.

As they said... UNraid takes something you don't need and makes it seem nice and pretty. But back up and answer.... why would you want something in the CATEGORY of UNraid? You have to have a purpose. Otherwise we're just pointing out its an untrustworthy product that you should never evaluate because of who they are - storage you can't trust. Like TrueNAS, a vendor built on lies and scams is a bad place to be for your storage. When you can't have trust, you can't use as storage.

But before you get to vendor trust, what value would the product potentially have? I've never had a situation where I said "If only I could trust these guys, this would meet my needs." It just doesn't come up. It's a product without a purpose.