Start with the man pages. Running the command man followed by a space and then followed by the command you’re using will almost always give you a man page of the basics of how that command works. The fstab has its own man page too. An internet search “man fstab” or whatever command you’re interested in should also net many mirrors of the those man pages as well.

For me at least, it’s not that you’re asking questions. I answered, so obviously I’m sympathetic to confusion in this area. I’m just trying to encourage you to seek your answers in the documentation and manuals FIRST. The way your question was worded led me to believe that you had not read the manuals at all and were simply copying snippets of code and commands from some random question and answer style forum that did not teach you anything about the fundamentals of what those commands and code actually did. That’s fine too, lots of people started off that way, myself included. Reading the manuals gives you the context to step back and understand how those commands work and what they’re really doing. If you do, you’ll be much better able to troubleshoot your own problems, you’ll be able to ask better questions in forums like this, and you’ll get better and more useful responses.

With all due respect, RTFM. Mount and umount are two sides of the same operational coin. You mount the drive to use it and unmount it when you’re done. fstab is just a file system table used to remember and consistently apply the options used whether you’re mounting the drives manually or telling the system to do it at boot.

Deleting a line from fstab is not the same as unmounting, it is just a shortcut to tell the system how you want that drive mounted when you or the system run the mount command. Mount directories (usually the folders in /media/ or /mnt/ ) also do not get automatically deleted just because you “yanked the drive”. Again, those directories are just where your system is expecting to mount the drive. When the drive is mounted they will be the root path to its contents, when the drive is unmounted they will be empty but they still exist. If your planning on mounting the drive again leave them there. If you’re not planning on mounting them again, delete them.

If you’re not planning on regularly mounting a particular drive, it probably shouldn’t be listed in fstab and you should just run the mount command with the appropriate options (again fstab is just a table for remembering those options for the mount command).

Many desktop Linux distros are also capable of automatically mounting new removable drives in such a way that the user can access them and doesn’t have to worry about touching fstab or the mount directories.

Blocklists are ineffective by design. Each and every member of the swarm can collect all the data necessary to flag you to your ISP. Obviously any professional collecting this kind of data can avoid a blocklist. There is no such thing as a better blocklist.

Teach us then 😭

I think this hits on another big generational difference. Those who grew up in the early days of personal computing and the Internet didn’t have teachers or a hallucinating language model to spoon feed them instant answers. They had to actually RTFM thoroughly before they could even think of asking in some arcane BBS, forum, or IRC for help from elders that had absolutely zero tolerance for incompetence or ignorance. MAN pages and help files came bundled, but the Internet (if you had it) was metered and inconvenient on a scale more like going to the library than ordering a pizza. They had to figure out how to ask the right questions. They had to figure out how to find their own answers. The Internet was so slow that all the really interesting bits were often just text. So much indexed and categorized one might need to learn a little more just to find the right details in that sea of text. There was a lot less instant gratification and no one expected to be able to solve their problems just by asking for help.

I’ve seen way too many kids give up at the first pebble in their path because they are so accustomed to the instant gratification that has pervaded our culture since the dawn of smart phones.

A decade ago we figured out blacklists were ineffective. What’s changed?

I wonder whatever happened to Knoppix. All I’ve been able to find online is speculation and questions.

Lars ruined Napster. BitTorrent came around some time later after Limewire, Soulseek, and DirectConnect. Lars might have had something to say about Bit Torrent, but by that point no one was listening.

Besides, back then, we really were using BitTorrent mostly for Linux ISOs. At the time it was more reliable than http. It really sucked having to download an entire ISO again because it failed the checksum. BitTorrent alleviated that.

Downloading from YouTube or Spotify is still piracy. And those sources offer mostly shit quality far removed from the artist’s intent.

Believe it of not, there are things that aren’t on Spotify, YouTube, TIDAL, Apple Music, Bandcamp, or any streaming service. Sometimes when a streaming service does have a song or album, it’s either not the best quality or only a radio censored version available, even if Spotify claims it’s the explicit version. And that explicit tag feels like a slander because the original intent should be default and the radio edits should be the one’s with the CENSORED tag.

There is great music out there you can’t purchase or stream a digital release of.

There are old and often played CDs in my collection that can’t be ripped properly (by me) for one reason or another.

There are some really high quality vinyl recordings out there, done by people with better hardware and more skill than I. Again, many of these vinyl releases are not available in any other format and are no longer available for purchase anywhere.

The real primary reason I got into it, in the long ago times of Napster, was that I liked to make mixtapes/discs. When radio was no longer playing songs I wanted on those tapes, the wilds of Internet was the answer.

I still regularly support the artists I like as directly as I can: buying albums and merch directly from them at shows or their own websites. And I spend more of that money on more artists and especially less popular artists specifically because of the habits listed above.

In my experience, 2 devices will ultimately save you effort and frustration. Anything you choose as a good NAS/seedbox will be unlikely to have a good from the couch interface or handle Netflix reliable and easily. A small Android TV box may have a much better interface, simple app setup, and support all the streaming services, but probably won’t be very powerful or convenient to use as a NAS. The NAS is always on, plugged directly into the Internet access point, and tucked away out of sight and sound. The Android TV or Apple TV box is silent, small, and can be mounted directly to the Beamer/Projector.

Yes, Kodi exists and it’s add-ons can bridge this gap. But I still think that a SBC NAS running Jellyfin or plex + an Nvidia shield with jellyfin, Plex, Netflix, Spotify, YouTube, amaon, etc. will be so much easier to setup, manage, find support for, and upgrade.

I have a similar setup even though my server has a direct HDMI link to my TV. I’m not a fan of viewing using the server it from the couch. Setting up IR remotes sucks always. And it’s confusing for anyone but me to use. But if my Nvidia Shield dies or I’m having network trouble, VLC a pretty good backup.

Maybe they are illuminating their living room with the front end of a BMW.

Better yet, it’s a Pimp My Ride style makeover that replaces those unused turn signals with a projection system for an instant drive-in movie experience.

The amount of downvotes on this comment is a symptom of how toxic this community has become.

Like every system? What’s the actual distinction you’re trying to point out?

I think the more nuanced take is that we should be making “piracy” legal by expanding and protecting fair use and rights to make personal copies. There are lots of things that are called piracy now that really shouldn’t be. Making “piracy” legal still leaves plenty of room for artists to get paid.

However, the issue is that I have to use sudo when using these commands and as a result after mounting I cannot make changes to my files in the drive(s) without using sudo.

This isn’t because you’re using sudo to mount, that is the way to do it. This is because you’re mounting to a directory for which your regular user does not have write access. Create a directory owned by your user and make sure you have write access with sudo first. Or make it owned by a group that your user is a member (I use media) and give that group write access. Then mount the drive to that directory in the usual way (I prefer to clutter up my fstab with entries I rarely use). You should now have access without sudo.

9 out of 10 times new users are struggling with access, it’s not a problem with the software, but a problem with permissions.

I’m just curious how much RAM you think that is.

Yes. Windows is as much a browser based OS these days as Chromebooks are.

Remember when courts declared Microsoft was a monopoly because they bundled their own browser, Internet Explorer, with the operating system? And they did it in a way that made it impossible to completely remove from the OS. Did they learn their lesson? I think they did, just not the lesson we wanted them to learn. Go ahead and try to uninstall Edge from Windows 10 or 11. Dive into the task manager sometime too and you’ll see Edge sub-processes running under a surprising number of other apps. There is no Windows operating system any more, it’s just Internet Explore refactored and rebranded as Edge all the way down. (Obvious hyperbole) At least Chromebooks were up front about it.

Docker compose is just a setting file for a container. It’s the same advantage you get using an ssh config file instead of typing out and specifying a user, IP, port, and private key to use each time. What’s the advantage to putting all my containers into one compose file? It’s not like I’m running docker commands from the terminal manually to start and stop them unless something goes wrong, I let systemd handle that. And I’d much rather the systemd be able to individually start, stop, and monitor individual containers rather than have to bring them all down if one fails.

You’re making a lot of unfounded assumptions here. Also, either your reading comprehension sucks or you’re being deliberately obtuse by claiming I said any such thing.