Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 20:23:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <pr2qkj1aqnm291jk8ikkgq1ah7gp6pugi9@4ax.com>
References: <viaov1$nh0h$2@dont-email.me> <071ikjds6op23p9b1vk6lg4l5379t7mv9l@4ax.com> <vib1e0$ouvk$1@dont-email.me> <rm3ikjdrk2c6m5ia2mcj32qrf2odp92dua@4ax.com> <vibb80$s01m$1@dont-email.me> <vicute$12qd5$2@dont-email.me> <j0gkkj1r7k5eqimh79o7vcc7sc4abro18j@4ax.com> <vieut7$1msjk$2@dont-email.me> <m7pmkj93qgktgha1a2ci6u4rhvvs6r2qk6@4ax.com> <vifpde$1tf8h$1@dont-email.me> <nermkj52tvp85j0gupdim58b315od66fd1@4ax.com> <vigakc$21500$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 02:23:39 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f90291e22e0141f24854421d4fc83f72";
	logging-data="3071925"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nnIa1gF4qkkXn87BnOu78fEuhVmwHgnY="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KIi5ARWIV4uqnssWxVhP/XkR0Og=
OS: Debian 12, with Wine 9.0 for WinAPI
Bytes: 4198

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>Joel>>>>
> >>>> It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external
> >>>> drive sucks as a continuous solution.
>
>Alan>>> Why?
>
>Joel>>
> >> If I want two drives, I want them both internal.  However, since I
> >> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
>
>Alan>
> > 1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different
> > words.
> >
> > 2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are
> > dual-booting.
>
>My observation is that it depends on what the workflow use case needs 
>are for if two drives are better (or needed) vs one, as well as if these 
>are better (or worse) served by both being internal vs 
>internal/external, etc.
>
>For example, contemplate the baseline 3-2-1 data backup strategy of 
>having three backup copies at all times, preferably over two mediums, 
>and having at least one be remote site located.  FYI, 'remote site' is 
>to mitigate single point failure risks such as a home fire destroying 
>everything. Ditto lightning strikes if all are continuously plugged in.
>
>So for a home user, what's the hardware solution for rotating a backup 
>copy to a remote site?  The main simple options today are either to:
>
>a) pay $$ to rent Cloud storage,
>or
>b) an external hard drive: unplug and sneaker-net it to the remote.
>
>
>A common trade-off on option (a) is one's ISP:  bandwidth speed 
>limitations and monthly quota restrictions may interfere.
>
>For option (b), if you want to have an internal bay instead of an 
>external HDD, that's fine ... but you're now looking at having to shut 
>down your entire PC, opening the case, and yanking out this internally 
>installed drive for each transfer to remote.  How frequently will 
>depends on your risk tolerance...a common best practice IIRC is weekly.


In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to
a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible.  My machine
isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts.
It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to
install it comfortably, or if I wanted to have a second modern drive
for some other reason.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.