• 0 Posts
  • 58 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • by plugging in a HDD I can only record a channel if I’m watching it and not record one channel while watching another

    That actually makes sense if we’re talking DVB-[C, S or T] channels received through an internal hardware tuner. A tuner can only tune in on one frequency at once. To record one channel while watching another, it would need to have two internal tuners, which isn’t very common and, I’d say, not something to expect unless specifically advertised.

    Also it has developed a fault where it basically shits its self every couple of weeks and the picture pixelates. It needs to be unplugged for a week and plugged back in.

    Warranty?





  • pirat@lemmy.worldtoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldLow Cost Mini PCs
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’m in the same situation as you, more or less… I have three new 22TB drives that need an enclosure, preferably for JBOD (no hardware RAID needed) but I can’t figure out which ones are actually good products… I don’t mind using a random-brand product if it’s actually solid.

    I find it very difficult to figure out which ones will support my 22TB drives. And for some of them, it seems, it’s impossible to add new drives to empty slots later (because of hardware RAID, I guess?), which has made me hesitant in buying one with more slots than I have drives, in case they can’t be utilized later on anyway…

    I was looking at the QNAP TR-004 which was mentioned by someone else somewhere on Lemmy some months ago, but IIRC it would be impossible to use the fourth slot later if the drive isn’t included in the hardware RAID configuration…

    EDIT: I have also been looking into so-called “backplanes” as an alternative, since they seem to do the job and are cheaper, but I’m unsure if I’ll need a PC chassis/case/tower for that to actually work?

    If you find something good (products or relevant info), feel free to share it with me.



  • I’m not the person you’re asking, but I have some evidence to support the case that making it work without proprietary code is a problem. GrapheneOS, a privacy-oriented Android-based smartphone OS, write in their usage guide:

    By default, GrapheneOS has always shipped with baseline support for eSIM, where users can use any eSIMs installed previously on the device. However, in order to manage and add eSIMs, proprietary Google functionality is needed. This is fully disabled by default.

    eSIM support on GrapheneOS doesn’t require any dependency on Google Play, and never shares data to Google Play even when installed.

    Edit: The fact that they haven’t implemented eSIM functionality without using the proprietary Google stuff, indicates to me that it’s either impossible/blocked or simply too hard with practically nothing in return to have been prioritised (yet?)