brickfrog

Voting for the proposal, would be nice to opt out of extra tracking beyond what already gets tracked/logged during typical Lemmy usage.

But in the grand scheme of things this is more of a Lemmy network problem, if that site exists then surely other sites/tools exist (or will soon) to do the same thing. I've always kind of figured it doesn't take much to start up a Lemmy instance, federate with others, & just start logging the info being sent across the instances (in this case upvotes/downvotes).

You've kind of got me wondering how Piefed handles that but that's another topic really.

Check the log file & see if there's any additional information you can troubleshoot with. According to your .conf it's in /var/log/samba/log.%m

And/or maybe increase the logging level and hopefully when the issue re-occurs you'll have lots more log info to work with. (may have to be careful with the log file sizes though) Not sure if you need to enable client specific logging or maybe just working with the main smb.conf file is enough, see the wiki

https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Client_specific_logging

EDIT: If you're not already seeing any logs maybe you do need to try enabling client specific logging (?)

VS HDD seems a bit unlikely. The typical cheap optical media isn't designed or meant for long term archival. There are more expensive types that are meant for long term storage but I'm pretty sure that's not what OP is talking about, especially if it's just random blank discs from thrift stores, etc.

But to your point even cheap optical media might outlast SSDs since those tend to lose their saved data if stored unpowered for x years.

Giving it a trial run might be okay though I'd lean towards leaving things as-is.

Does kind of feel like the overall community wouldn't be too thrilled. I'm having a hard time understanding why the instance would be entertaining a change now. Like I can't think of any communities I care to participate in over there, just seems like spamming up people's All feed for no discernible benefit.

OTOH you have a point, people can do instance blocking in their user settings so that is an option.

If admins are okay with running both Lemmy and Piefed instances simultaneously then it seems fine IMO.

But otherwise don't feel strongly about it, I don't know that I'd actually use the Piefed instance unless something happens within the Lemmyverse side of things or issues with the dbzer0 Lemmy instance itself.

All the loaded torrents in a torrent client already get stored somewhere in the torrent client's own settings folders. e.g. if you look in qBittorrent's settings folders you'll find a folder full of .torrent files representing every single torrent currently in the torrent client.

So if it's a torrent I'm going to leave loaded in the torrent client then no, there's no reason to save a second copy of the .torrent file. But I guess if it's a torrent I'm not going to load in the torrent client, or will remove it from there, then maybe it's worth saving depending how you do things.

I’m undecided. I figure if I save them and back them up to an offline/offsite device, then I can (mostly/hopefully) recover from hardware failure by simply re-adding all the torrent files to my favorite client.

It would be better just to back up your entire torrent client settings folders, you'll save all the .torrent files along with the save folders and other information you have in the torrent client.

Remmina and Xrdp are probably the better RDP clients at the moment. I've had no problems using either to connect to Windows 10 desktops but have not tested Windows 11.

FreeRDP is used by most (all?) Linux RDP clients, it does have its own active development.

Could also try the Linux RDP client that Thincast has, still uses FreeRDP in the backend like the others but it does seem work well at least with Windows 10 (https://thincast.com/en/products/client).

Also for what it's worth I've seen mention of a FreeRDP bug when the client fails to connect to Windows 11 with multi monitor enabled (since most Linux RDP clients use FreeRDP the bug affects them all too). Think the workaround for now is to disable multi-monitor in the RDP client settings before attempting to connect. Think it is getting fixed in the next FreeRDP release. No idea if that's your issue but worth a look (e.g. https://gitlab.com/Remmina/Remmina/-/issues/3403)

Still learning this myself but I've found that Xrdp is Wayland compatible so there's that if you want to remote using RDP protocol.

Gnome has its own version called Gnome Remote Desktop that is also Wayland compatible.

And for KDE its own KRdp is another RDP protocol remote server that is Wayland compatible (https://github.com/KDE/krdp). I haven't tested the KDE version yet but I'd guess it works similarly to Gnome Remote Desktop and Xrdp, AFAIK they all use FreeRDP in the backend.

All the Linux RDP servers seem to have their own quirks but seem okay for personal day-to-day use least.

Beyond RDP solutions you could also check out stuff like RustDesk and NoMachine, they seem to be Wayland compatible as well. Though I am curious what else people use.

PS - Gave up looking for a Wayland compatible VNC, not sure if VNC will sort of die out as more and more Linux distros switch over to Wayland.

Kind of seems like an ad, every link to their site has a referral in it ( /?ref=news.itsfoss.com ), guessing itsfoss gets paid for those clicks.

Nope, I prefer being able to run my own network router, open/close my own ports, block ads on the network, hopefully get as much bandwidth as I can, etc. so it's usually better for me to subscribe to my own internet.

... But since you bring it up, coincidentally I currently live on a street with shops/restaurants on the main floor under me. And all their wifi networks are visible from my apartment... so technically yeah, if I go through the trouble of collecting all their wifi passwords I could just hang out on their networks for free internet. Internet probably wouldn't be great and not very private without a VPN but for free web browsing it should work.

combine announce URLs into one torrent file

No.

or create a separate torrent file for each tracker?

Yes.

You can also check in the rules/FAQ of each private tracker but it's universal that all private trackers require their torrents to exist and announce/share peers separately. That doesn't mean the data has to be separate e.g. if it's the same torrent data you can point multiple torrents to the same data.

You forgot to mention their Tor link, seems to be working fine http://l337xdarkkaqfwzntnfk5bmoaroivtl6xsbatabvlb52umg6v3ch44yd.onion/

(also linked in https://1337x-status.org/ )