Jaca wrote: > [emoji23] since when workaround isn't solution? > > What's wrong with this particular one? > I would argue it's better still then package which potentially could > expose whole NAS if there were any security holes.. With docker you are > only providing access to specific shared folders and as read only.. > > Just to double check you are aware you not actually change any folder > structure or duplicate data with symlink? Don't understand why you are > against that.. It's simple solution to map multiple shared folders to > LMS / overcome docker LMS limitation
The practice from larger systems tells, that a workaround can't be a permanent solution. Especially if you need tot do changes to the outside system, like here in the Synology. It's possible that this kind of workaround is not effective after upgrade. Of course everybody is free to do with their devices what ever they want, but I don't want to temper with production system with over 17TB of data, where whole backup to USB3 takes over 4 whole days. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ V12's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=71202 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111828 _______________________________________________ unix mailing list unix@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
