Reminds me I caught my first one in the wild the other day. Note the replaced bumper, and still visible damage to the front left. I’m sure they have insurance /s

Pirates eye

For sure, there could be one person with 1.1 and 10 people with 0.99, but the average will still be 1.0

“Half our students are below average!” kinda vibes - KDR necessarily means that for every person with 1.5, there is someone with a 0.67, that’s just how the math works. If I’m anywhere near 1.0, I’m happy.

I have 35mbps upload from the ISP, and limit each stream to 8mbps. This covers direct streaming all my 1080p content and a 4K transcode as needed.

If they are “clearly not working”, why can’t you prove it?

Yeah, no data loss, rebuilt within 48 hours each time. 10TB is a nice balance that doesn’t have such long rebuild times

The first two died within 30 days, the second one took about 4 months I think. Not a huge sample size, but it kind of matches the typical hard drive failure bathtub curve.

I just double checked, and mine were actually from a similar seller on Amazon - they all seem to be from the same supplier though - the warranty card and packaging are identical. So ymmv?

Warranty was easy, I emailed the email address included in the warranty slip, gave details on order number + drive serial number, and they sent me a mailing slip within 1 business day. Print that out, put the drive back in the box it shipped with (I always save these), tape it up and drop it off for shipping. In my case, it was a refund of the purchase pretty much as soon as it was delivered to the seller.

I currently have 6x10TB of these drives running in a gluster array. I’ve had to return 2 so far, with a 3rd waiting to send in for warranty also (click of death for all three). That’s a higher failure rate than I’d like, but the process has been painless outside of the inconvenience of sending it in. As all my media is replaceable, but I have redundancy and haven’t lost data (yet).

Supporting hardware costs and power costs depending, but you may find larger drive sizes to be a better investment in the long term. Namely, if you plan on seeing the drives through to their 5 year warranty, 18TB drives are pretty good value.

For my hardware and power costs, this is the breakdown for cumulative $/TB (y axis) over years of service (x axis):

That’s fair - I’d much prefer a standard license anyway, and it does come across as a bit of a PR stunt in this case.

It depends a great deal on what type of software it is I suppose. If your product is not useful to anyone but corporate entities (e.g. online auction platform), or if you’re the dominant player in a market (e.g. Linux), the license has minimal benefit - either be open source or don’t. If you’re in a space with both personal and corporate use, and your product is disruptive, maybe it makes more sense then. But it starts to get kinda niche.

While I’d prefer just using the MIT license if at all possible, I do see a case for this when the alternative is a worse license/not open source at all.

If I’m running a software company that needs to make money to pay myself and/or employees, I need to preserve my revenue stream. No income = not eating, so the main option is it keep the software closed source.

But what if I don’t like being closed? Maybe my software would be useful to hobbyists as well as my clients. But I’ve got commercial competitors who, if they had my software without restriction, would profit off of my work and actively eat into my earnings. Maybe they undercut my rates for providing support, so we’d be racing to the bottom. Maybe they integrate it directly into their competing product, so clients go to them and not me because they can get my solution and whatever else the (closed) competitor offers.

So this license offers a middle ground. If someone uses it in a way that doesn’t impact my income, that’s fine! I wasn’t doing it anyway. Maybe it’s a good idea though - if I start doing the same thing, the competitor is allowed to continue using versions of the software released up to the date that I begin competing with them. From there on, they are free to modify the software themselves, but no longer use updates to the software - they will need to further develop it themselves, the same way I do. We’re on equal footing now. They will be able to take any updates to the software 2 years after I release them, so they’re not entirely stuck. If my software moves slowly, this may not even be a big deal. It gives me incentive to develop and maintain my software better than the competitors, rather than resting on my laurels.

Basically, it’s a protection against the greed of other companies who could use your work in competition with you without contributing back, while still (eventually) making the code open source. If your project grows to be primarily community driven, I don’t think it’s a good license at all, as you’d be benefiting from other people’s work, and it isn’t fair to them to claim business rights. But if a company pays for the vast majority of the work on the software (like, 90%+), I feel like it’s a decent option.

You always know politicians are crooked, but this is just staggeringly incompetent.