No, you don’t need to do that.
No, you don’t need to do that.
It might be ‘state after G3’
pathological
I’m afraid this one is already taken, friend.
Motorcycle, actually.
Your timeline is straight up fucked. In short, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Imagine you are driving the bed
actually quite enjoyable, ty!
This is the worst second-hand embarrassment I’ve experienced in quite a while. I can’t imagine working with someone like this.
There is no sh shell.
lol
Thank you for sharing your opinion and your brilliant advice on how to be constructive. I especially enjoyed the part where you said I shouted my comment with anger—that was really good!
Let’s flip it, then: what about this post is useful?
This is fucking useless. Please stop.
Holy XY.
Why are you doing this? What are you trying to achieve?
3-2-1
The /s actually makes this one more sincere.
Imagine trying to learn math without solving any problems along the way.
You must be reasonably decent at counting!
This is really good, I just want to clarify one thing:
there are specific protocols that are traditionally used on those specific ports
Protocols are not ‘used on ports’, it’s actually the other way around: TCP and UDP are both protocols operating on top of IP, each with its own set of ports to help direct traffic, exactly as you explained.
There are other protocols, like ICMP or GRE, that exist quite happily without knowing anything about ports (ICMP has types and codes, GRE doesn’t).
Edit: I suppose it is actually a bit ambiguous because we also refer to applications (HTTPS, telnet) as protocols. I’m not sure if there is a standard way to differentiate when discussing other than just saying transport layer protocol / application layer protocol.
Yes - and unless you treat each enclosure as its own failure domain, it will still be a compromise, but it’s a lot better.
What an assertion - if you’re not using ZFS, how do you know you’ve “never lost a bit so far”?
So will I.