Bonobo

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bonobo

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. I've been following this thread for a while now and I want to thank everyone involved for the effort they've put in. I'm probably moving away from xpenology exactly because of this. I knew the one big risk and used it anyway. It's just not worth waiting while there are known security holes that need patching IMO. I just don't understand why Synology doesn't release proper sources. Aren't they required to? It's not like people buy Synology hardware because they can mess around with it. They buy it because it just works. Anyway good luck!
  2. They're not the same. I let the program "WinMerge" do it's thing and generate a report on the Intel x86 Bromolov 64 bit version. I don't know enough of the software to make any comments on the matter. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s531r4hfjqdjo ... s.ods?dl=0
  3. The GPL states that you need to release the source code to everyone if you distribute your software in any way. If they won't comply you can bet your ass you can get help from the Free Software Foundation. Almost all of DSM is built on linux and that's fully GPL. The only issue is that only the copyright holders can legally take action against Synology. There is a reason they don't distribute DSM with their Video Station and Photo Station, and that's because it's not allowed according to the GPL. You have to download those separately. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.ht
  4. Would it be bad if I just let it patch itself? I just clicked update now and it just worked. Also I thought DSM used Busybox, not Bash. Oh well
  5. This kind of scared me in the patch notes. Did they drop support for the DS3612xs and that's why they didn't mention it? You can't convert to SHR2 from SHR so if this affects xpenology a lot of people will displeased. And that's really understating it. I won't risk the update, yet.
  6. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Synology OS is open source under mostly GPL right? That's also the reason they don't ship the units with their propetiary packages, you have to download them. This would mean that any checks they might try can be removed by removing it from the source. The only question that remains is how long do the xpenology devs (that do this for free, BIG THANKS BY THE WAY) are willing to support it. Right? I'm also not familiar with gnoboot or nanoboot side. What license are those?
  7. The part in step 1 could be confusing to some people. You need to select the update and upload it and press OK, but DO NOT PRESS UPDATE NOW RIGHT AFTER. Instead run the commands and then press the button. This had me going for a while.
  8. please name a few.. thanks You make yourself reliant on another guy that needs to keep updating his images with the new releases. Also there is no guarantee that he didn't tamper with it not to mention there could be bugs introduced with this method.
  9. I was going to cheer but then I realized it uses a custom image. This is bad for all kinds of reasons. Bummer.
  10. So Xpenology installs to the data drives then I guess. Is there any reason for that? I'd like to keep my data and the OS separate to be honest. The reason for that is that having a full separation allows you to migrate really easily and will be able to change the OS whenever you want. I'll just use as much "external" packages to access the server from the outside to prevent any backdoors from being abused. Synolocker 2.0 isn't a pretty thought. If there is a manual I'd love to see it. Threads that have for example gnoboot or nanoboot don't bother explaining what it is, it's being
  11. Hello I found out about xpenology a few days ago and have been messing around with it in virtualbox just to check it out. I kind of fell in love with the ease of use that it offers. However, I have a few questions before I move from Ubuntu Server to Xpenology. 1. Reliability How stable is it? I have a solid backup solution that I can use to recover my data but I'd rather not. Does it contain backdoors in any way? Synology is Chinese so it's not weird to think this. The Synology systems had a few backdoors/bugs(no practical difference really, and I'm ignoring synolocker here) 2.