A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (donβt cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
Did I just brick my SAS drive?
I was trying to make a pool with the other 5 drives and this one kept giving errors. As a completer beginner I turned to gpt.....
What can I do? Is that drive bricked for good?
Don't clown on me, I understand my mistake in running shell scripts from Ai...
Edit: EMPTY DRIVES NO DATA
The initial error was:
Edit: sde and SDA are the same drive, name just changed for some reason And also I know it was 100% my fault and preventable π
I tell people not to do that all the time. They'd rather listen to the statistical vomit machine.
Can you blame them?
The manuals are written by experts for experts and in most cases entirely useless for complete beginners who likely won't be able to even find the right manual page (or even the right manual to begin with).
Tutoral pages are overwhelmingly AI vomit too, but AI vomit from last year's AI, so even worse than asking AI right now.
Asking for help online just gets you a "lol, RTFM, noob!"
Look at this thread right now and count how many snarky bullshit answers are there that don't even try to answer the question, how many answers like "I got no idea" are there and then how many actually helpful answers are here.
Can you really blame anyone who turns to AI, because that garbage at least sounds like it tries to help you?
Yes. LLMs don't make anyone not responsible for their output.
If your dumb friend gave you bad advice and you followed it, you are ultimately still responsible for your decisions.
This is a thing that honestly still makes me seethe sometimes, because as much as the manuals are there and people should be told to read the manual before anything else, there is a vast difference between a user's manual and a technical manual. People who answer basic questions by telling the user to RTFManpage instead of leading them to the bropage or the tl;drpage or a simple use case tutorial (or even better, providing the example themselves) ironically builds bad cred for a movement for well-documented software.
The User's Manual for a car covers, at best, how to turn the ignition on, how to drive, how to brake in difficult conditions and how to change the tires. Maybe it covers where exactly the friggin' cupholder is. A Technical Manual for a car is for when there's a real exceptional emergency that's not simply covered by user service. The computer does not work and someone (not you, but the technician!) needs to know how to pin the RS232 connectors for the emergency interface of the onboard chip. The refrigeration liquid tube has broken off and you need to know what model or measurements the replacement needs to be and what heat can it withstand before it starts melting and likely obstructing the valve. You need to know if (or for how long) the car's engine can withstand frontal semiautomatic fire and up to what reverse speed can the vehicle perform a safe J-turn maneuver in case you face an ambush.
~95% of manpages I've ever seen are Technical Manuals. ~70% of "help" for non-browser systems, as well.
What beginners need to be directed at before anything else is the User's Manual.
And if that one is not available, go get writing it.
All that said, none of that excuses turning to AI. AI is explicitly and specifically for when you don't want things to work, or for when you are specifically looking for someone to bullshit you. They are for evading responsibility, not for finding solutions.
I mean look at OPs horrible post screenshots and one rotated 90 degrees. Come on they put in little effort don't expect lots of effort back.
Did it occur to you that OP might be a total beginner who doesn't know about the conventions on how to report issues and how to format posts?
Oh this so very much. We've ALL made horrific mistakes, most of which don't get published on a forum for fear of the snark. It really irks me. But, there's not much I can do about people's attitudes. All of us were clueless, newbs, at one time or another, unless you were born with a computing device in your hand, in which case, I feel sorry for your mum.
A comfortable lie is still a lie. Everything that comes out of an LLM is a lie until proven otherwise. ("Lie" is a bit misleading, though, as they don't have agency or intent: they're a variation of your phone keyboard's next-word text prediction algorithm. With added flattery and confidence.)
There's a reason experienced people stress hard to others about not using them as shortcuts to your own knowledge. This is the outcome.
Another way to look at it is "trust, but verify". If you're intent on relying on probabilistic text as an answer, instead of bothering to learn, then take what it's given you and verify what that does before doing it. You could learn to be an effective sloperator with just that common sense.
But if you're going to give an LLM root/admin access to a production environment, then expect to be laughed at, because you had plenty of opportunities to not destroy something and actively chose not to use them.
Everything that comes off of a tutorial, or web page is paddling the same boat, without exception.
Are you really comparing LLM output to be on the same level of... hallucination-ness, than a Gamefaqs tutorial for a SNES game from the late 90s?
I know tiktok has deep-fried and rotten the brains of entire generations but this is just ridiculous.
Well, I can't speak to Gamefaqs or SNES as I am incapable of gaming. However, even what I would consider reputable tutorials such as ones you find on HowToForge, sometimes don't quite turn out as expected. There is always some config or app that the tutorial needed, but was left out by the person writing the tutorial. Or the writer of the tut, had something pre-configed or preinstalled, so it wasn't mentioned, even when following the tutorial line by line. It's inevitable. For this reason, I maintain a small test VPS where I can run amuck and if I fuck something up, no problem, wipe/reinstall. So, if you're going to say don't trust AI, then you have to also be skeptical of all tuts. I mean, that's where the AI scrapers got the info in the first place. I'm not saying AI is 100% tho I anticipate one day it will be, or at least very damn close. There are things AI gets right. It seems very capable of writing compose files well. Just my 2p
I had a problem with Fedora 42, where the performance of my games would be fine one day and abysmal another day. Couldn't find a pattern. I googled a ton, tried to debug myself, asked on reddit, stackexchange, the fedora forum and lemmy. I only got answers like "Works fine on my machine, noob" and "I have that problem too". It only affected games running in proton on heroic, everything else was fine.
After about a year of on-and-off debugging and asking around, I swallowed my pride and asked ChatGPT.
First answer from that thing was correct: I had run
dnf updatewithout doing aflatpak updateright afterwards. Turns out, flatpak has its own copy of Nvidia drivers and if the system driver is updated without the flatpak copy being updated, it falls back to software rendering. So the performance was crap until I didflatpak updatethe next time, and broke again when I randnf update.I still haven't found that in any documentation so far.
AI is crap more often than not, but it does at least try to help and sometimes it actually does.
Look in this thread here. Is there even a single answer that tries to help OP, or is every single answer here just dumb snark?
It's true that people on the internet can be dicks. Even more so technical people (and that's not limited to online: those online dicks are usually IRL dicks when taking technical stuff). But that's a hurdle, not a barrier.
There's little anyone here can do to help OP, as they (if I understand it correctly) have already irreparably nuked their hardware. The current problem is significantly different and harder than the original problem. Asking randos on this community is unlikely to yield results. Hence the focus on variations of "Now... what did we learn? π€¨"
I'm not trying to help, as I'm not familiar enough with SAS nor the current problem. The same is likely true of others here.
The only evidence that OP irreparably nuked their hardware is ChatGPTs word.
The bigger issue ad hand is that everyone here is a noob when it comes to exotic hardware like SAS, and still everyone here thinks they are 1337 haxors enough to tell OP that they are a noob idiot.
Tbh, if OP asks for help here and there's 49 comments of people being dicks and one that actually helps it might be worthwhile. But as it stands it's 50 to 0, with nobody here beeing educated enough to know anything about the subject.
Depends heavily on what place you ask for help in. There are plenty of spaces explicitly meant for community tech support. In OPs case, I'll say the title doesn't help and asking an LLM for advice on a topic you're unfamiliar with (and not second-guessing the commands you paste into the terminal) is such a bad idea that it really can't be understated. I regularly catch some of my colleagues making AI-assisted mistakes and they're professionals who genuinely know better. This shit shouldn't ever be recommended as a learning tool for beginners without some kind of supervision or guard rails to ensure you're not being gaslit.