@bender@twtxt.net Yes bit weird 🤔

@prologic@twtxt.net I am following @dbucklin@ but mentioning him renders that broken thing you see on this twt.

@dbucklin@www.davebucklin.com hmmm

@prologic@twtxt.net this happened. Mentions often break. 😩

@dbucklin Hey! 👋

@bender Wgat happened? 🤔

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com images are linked using markdown “standard”, like so:

![Description](https://link.to.the.image/image.jpg)

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com hehehehe, I was trying to mention dbucklin but Yarn is broken.

I vote for jenny too. It is pretty cool. Even more so if you are a mutt’s fan!

@dbucklin@www.davebucklin.com Hi there! Well, I got your message. Let me know if you have gotten mine.

@dbucklin@www.davebucklin.com further test. It seems Yarn is very finicky.

Let’s see if this works, shall we? 😊

@someone@www.davebucklin.com testing…

And that’s… bad, right @prologic?

So, started following https://www.davebucklin.com/twtxt.txt, but there is no way to interact with him. Mentions will never come out right.

@bender@twtxt.net Ha, we both looked it up at once. You win.

@bender@twtxt.net Synology uses single-volume Btrfs on software RAID, which seems to be pretty solid in my research but that’s less flexible than ZFS. https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/What_was_the_RAID_implementation_for_Btrfs_File_System_on_SynologyNAS

Ha! Found it:

Due to the Btrfs RAID issues, Synology chose Linux RAID. Based on the diagram below, Synology has implemented the layers in between the file systems and disks to ensure that Synology has full control to achieve the highest stability.

@mckinley I am curious now, though. Doesn’t Synology use RAID Btrfs? How in the world do they do it? Researching…

@bender@twtxt.net Exactly. It’s just not an option with warnings like that all over the place. Some people have had success, but I’m not risking it. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20200627032414.GX10769@hungrycats.org/

@mckinley “Warning: The RAID 5 and RAID 6 modes of Btrfs are fatally flawed, and should not be used for “anything but testing with throw-away data.” – Yikes!. Gulp.

@prologic@twtxt.net ZFS is fine but it’s out-of-tree and extremely inflexible. If Btrfs RAID5/6 was reliable it would be fantastic. Add and remove drives at will, mix different sizes. I hear it’s mostly okay as long as you mirror the metadata (RAID1), scrub frequently, and don’t hammer it with too many random reads and writes. However, there are serious performance penalties when running scrubs on the full array and random reads and writes are the entire purpose of a filesystem.

Bcachefs has similar features (but not all of them, like sending/receiving) and it doesn’t have the giant scary warnings in the documentation. I hear it’s kind of slow and it was only merged into the kernel in version 6.7. I wouldn’t really trust it with my data.

I bought a couple more hard drives recently and I’m trying to figure out how I’m going to allocate them before badblocks completes. I have a few days to decide. :)

@movq@www.uninformativ.de what password manager do you use on the CLI? Is it pass?

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I’ve kept this thread open to think about… But honestly I’m drawing a blank. Do you have any ideas for improvements yourself here? It’s not super clear to me what we should do to make this easier and more useful 😅 I admit myself I also get confused between Match and Term and even though I understand what Query String search is, I tend to think it’s something we can support by “magical detection”™ of the input? 🤔

Does bring up an
interesting question for me though…

would anyone be willing to pay for a twtxt service?