1. 38
  1.  

  2. 6

    A decade and a half ago a housemate was part of a “0-day warez” ring that found modems far too low bandwidth and just mailed hard-drives to each other. At the time we were on a 28k modem, so although their solution had 24 hour latency (1st Class Royal Mail) sucked, their bandwidth was unsurpassed :-)

    1. 5

      “Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.” - Andrew S. Tanenbaum

    2. 3

      I think it’s kind of funny that they include the antivirus updates when their service is probably responsible for the viruses.

      1. 2

        This back-in-time solution may be interesting, if not a bit cumbersome, to avoid user tracking as well and allow you to watch stuff without anyone (remotely) watching over your shoulders.

        I’m doing this now using youtube-dl if I find an interesting video that I may or may not watch later.

        1. 1

          I knew some folks that ran a massive sneakernet. They favored XFS, because as memory serves it allowed them to keep all the metadata in sync while still shuffling around the data itself as needed.

          1. 1

            I thought XFS was more sensitive to data corruption in cases like power loss or careless unplugging of hardware before you unmount/remembered to safely remove the device.

            1. 2

              I think so too…they were just meticulous in how they handled their data. This is all second-hand knowledge, though, so I could be way off. :)

              1. 1

                It was very sensitive to power outages (see this FAQ for example), but a lot of those issues have been fixed. That said, in my experience it is still a little more sensitive than most filesystems (I use it a fair amount and have had my odd share of funnies caused by unexpected power outages)..