It’s an unpopular opinion, but I agree with you. I’ve been running single disk Synology for a decade or so, replaced the original one about 4 years ago.
The software is pretty sleek and it would fit OPs requirements perfectly. I don’t care for some Intel based PC sucking kWhs of power each day, just to hosts some media.
non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Do not promote these Synology jerks.
Synology’s software is awful. Simply controlling NFS shares is an exercise in insanity, and don’t get me started on ACLs.
Further, synology is a real bastard company currently trying to enshittify hardware (disk) upgrades, among other terrible practices:
reddit.com/…/can_we_still_trust_synology_users_ca…
tomshardware.com/…/synology-requires-self-branded…
Full disclosure, I myself am running an old ds211j for backups. It’s way out of updates, and there isn’t much of a 3rd party image collection for synology hardware, but it works fine and lives in its own locked down subnet.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day ago
Strange, I’ve had no issue controlling NFS shares or ACLs. Have set up 4 Synology NAS’s, with shares out the wahzoo. No problems. User error maybe?
That disk upgrade thing was a mountain out of a molehill. All they are doing is reserving some of their disk health features for synology branded disks because they’re the only ones they can verify meet their standards for their software.
non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Then explain why one can successfully use and old synology to “mark” drives as “authentic synology” and move them into a newer DSM model to use them. This means the mechanism amounts simply to marking disks and not binning disks or any kind of actual hardware selection. Which in turn means that “certified” Synology disks are nothing more than disks with a Synology signature. And not even in firmware, but on the platter.
And that is the “molehill” everyone is calling Synology out on.
As explained ad nauseum on various yt channels, having a hw compatibility list makes sense for users likely to buy support, like business users. It makes little sense in a home market where users are both more likely to buy 3rd party disks and will not likely invoke official Synology support.
But add on top of it that there is no functional hardware difference between certified and non-certified, and it becomes pretty clear that Synology is to be avoided.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day ago
Because they have to have a way for legacy users to maintain functionality. Going forward though, new drives in new devices are handled differently. It’s basically a quality control type thing - they’re providing the support and warranty for them, so they’re only “guaranteeing” that their checks work on their drives. That makes sense. They don’t want to be on the hook for saying that a drive that isn’t theirs was perfectly healthy and then it drops dead an hour later and you lose all your data.
Again though, the disks still work. The compatibility lists simply tell you if they are officially supported and will get certain features.