Also agreed. OP is going to find they’re spending more time setting up some system, entering data, and stopping to use it instead of just putting everything in a box labeled “kitchen” and unpacking it in the kitchen when they get to the new place.
Some protocols, like ICMP, don’t have the concept of ports at all!
Oh if they don’t even have support, yeah I would have moved away a long time ago.
Oh I thought you meant it just doesn’t reply to DDNS updates. If it doesn’t even reply to DNS queries, yeah that’s a big issue. What did their support have to say about it?
Does your IP address really change that often?
Flexibility. Maybe they get a hosting package that includes domain registration and hosting, but they can’t put anything else under that name.
Guarantee? You’d have to open it up and disable the cellular radio. The OS can override any settings you make.
I would just turn off media uploads entirely. It’s not worth the risk or disk space.
No.
In that they’re a single organization, yes, but I’m a single person with significantly fewer resources. Non-availability is a significantly higher risk for things I host personally.
I don’t self-host it, I just use archive.org. That makes it available to others too.
Does it update if you refresh the page? You may just want to file a bug report.
He says a lot of things. Few of them are true. I guarantee Congress will write the law, and I see no reason Trump would veto it. He is in a position of power, he can always get his mistress an abortion regardless of legality.
Look at elections around the world. It is not just our mess.
There are no good answers for your questions. It’s going to be painful.
Not really, no. I would use either Windows or Linux on the desktop, and run the services and the other OS in VMs.
Personally I use Windows on my desktop, and I have a Linux VM running docker containers. I use that same VM for random Linux tasks I can’t do on Windows too.
How much did you search? Because the results are pretty unambiguous, you set a custom format profile.
RAID is more likely to fail than a single disk. You have the chance of single-disk failure, multiplied by the number of disks, plus the chance of controller failure.
This is poorly phrased. A raid with a bad disk is not failed, it is degraded. The entire array is not more likely to fail than a single disk.
Yes, you are more likely to experience a disk failure, but like you said, only because you have more disks in the first place. (However, there is also the phenomenon where, after replacing a failed disk, the additional load during the rebuild might cause a second disk to fail, which is why you should replace failed disks as soon as possible. And have backups.)
They absolutely won’t have better reach. Mastodon is significantly smaller than both Twitter and Bluesky.