Whoever told you that was feeding you bullshit.

Who told me what? What are you talking about? I know my machine was made in 2008 (which came with linux on it from the factory). Or are you objecting to my estimate that I can get 10 more years out of it? No one told me I could get 10 more years out of it. In fact people are shocked that a machine that old still serves me.

You’ve lost track of the thread. Your words:

I’m pretty sure you are writing from a device that has most of his fundamental components not made in Europe but the US.

It does not matter where the components came from on a 2008 machine. In 2008 ETS was not even a concept to me. You cannot retroactively boycott. I wish I could travel back 25 years in time and tell myself before Amazon became the evil that it is today to boycott Amazon. A boycott can only be practiced after you resolve to partake in the boycott. An ethical consumer can only be responsible for maintaining their integrity /after/ committing to boycott.

Think about it: we can’t make microchips, and most of the IT and media production we watch is made by US companies and therefore under the control of the US.

A Dutch company makes the machines that makes chips. That puts Netherlands in many supply chains. Of course gnu linux would have countless contributions from Europe as well.

Not sure about that. Do you use PeerTube?

I don’t produce videos with the exception of 1 video, which I published on PeerTube and not YT. It was trivially easy for me.

Think about it: we can’t make microchips, and most of the IT and media production we watch is made by US companies and therefore under the control of the US.

Did you try it? When I print the Pancake Corner menu page to PDF, it produces 10 pages of web junk and only one of those pages is the menu. The one page that is the menu only shows the cover of the menu (even if I have turned the page in the interactive application).

I could perhaps inspect the code and work out a way to hack around the obsticles, but let me give some context: when planning to visit a city for which I do not live for a short time (maybe just 1 day), I do some searches on the kind of cuisine I would like and get a list of URLs to ~20—30 restaurants. The goal is to quickly accumulate a local copy of many menus which can be used not just in advance planning but to have them on my offline phone for on-the-fly decisions. Spending all day planning out a day is a bit impractical for the benefit. PDFs from HTML contain a lot of junk, not just the menu, which then has a purpose-defeatingly-poor UX for trying to quickly see a menu on a tiny phone screen while running from one attraction to the next.

So in reality @[email protected]’s scenario plays out: the restaurant might lose my business because I cannot be bothered to go through all their hoops to get a menu in my local storage. Restaurants with easily reached PDFs have a business advantage because they are better exposed to get more of my attention. The other restaurants still have a chance if no menu seems enticing but they are a 2nd resort and may get lucky from my blind arbitrary selection.

your interpretation of my quote is incorrect

Your words, quoted here again as proof that you have defined “repair” so narrowly as to exclude taking actions to restore a product to put back into service:

I wouldn’t consider “hacking” a drive to continue using it when you shouldn’t a repair.

What is your mother tongue that is so far from English?

All I’ll say is I’m glad you have nothing to do with making the specifications for this sort of hardware and that it’s left to competent and educated engineers.

You are really lost here. We actually agreed on the engineering decision (which was the decision to have a fail safe trigger). Again, the point of contention is the management decision to block property owners from control over their own property after they recover their data – the management decision that forces useful hardware to be needlessly committed to e-waste after the data has been migrated. It is because you think the profit-driven management decision of a private enterprise is “engineering” makes you profoundly incompetent for involvement in engineering specs. But you might be able to do marketing or management at a company like Microsoft. Shareholders would at least love your corporate boot-licking posture and your propaganda rhetoric in framing management decisions as “engineering”.

But plz, stay away from specs. Proper specs favor the consumers/users and community. They are not optimized to exploit consumers to enrich corporate suppliers and generate landfill.

Me providing an example of a repair is not me claiming it is the only method of repair.

Luckily I quoted you, which shows that you have defined “repair” so narrowly as to exclude taking actions to restore a product to put back into service.

Except, again, you aren’t making it useful again,

Of course it’s useful again. To claim writing to a drive is not useful is to misunderstand how storage devices are useful.

you’re attempting to bypass a fail safe put in place by engineers.

No I’m not. The fail safe should remain. That much was well done by engineers and I would be outraged if it were not in place. I WANT my drive to go into read-only mode when it crosses a reliability threshhold. The contention is what happens after the fail safe – after recovering the data. No one here believes the drive should not fail safe.

The first paragraph quoted (and the article as whole) cover reads, different between different drives (including different specs for enterprise vs consumer) and how the values are drawn.

Yes I read that. And? It’s immaterial to the discussion whether it’s an enterprise or consumer grade. Enterprise hardware still lands in the hands of consumers at 2nd-hand markets.

10k is for intel 50nm MLC NAND specifically. Other values are presented in the article.

And? Why do you think this is relevant to the nannying anti-repair discussion? It doesn’t obviate anything I have said. It’s just a red herring.

It isn’t arbitrary as you’ve attempted to hand wave it as.

Yes it is. Read your own source. They are counting write cycles to get an approximation of wear, not counting electrons that stick.

It doesn’t matter how sophisticated the software standard is, the oxide on the drive will eventually wear down and is a physical problem.

This supports what I have said. Extreme precision is not needed when we have software that gives redundancy to a user-specified extent and precisely detects errors.

it doesn’t pass for right to repair imo.

Denying owners control over their own property s.t. they cannot put it back into service is an assault on repair. Opposing the nannying is to advocate for a right to repair.

It’s risking data loss to wring an extra 12 months (or likely, less) from a dying drive.

You’re not grasping how the tech works. The 12 months is powered off state maintenance for reading. Again, you’re missing the reading and writing roles here. I’m not going to explain it again. Read your own source again.

For every 1 person like you that its an annoyance for it saves multitudes more that are less savvy pointlessly risking data loss.

This is a false dichotomy. It’s possible to protect the low tech novices without compromising experts from retaining control over their own product. This false dichotomy manifests from your erroneous belief that the fail safe contradicts an ability to reverse the safety switch after it triggers.

I didn’t claim as such

Luckily I quoted you, which shows that you have defined “repair” so narrowly as to exclude taking actions to restore a product to put back into service.

and replacing a faulty or damaged module wouldn’t return it to factory condition.

I never said it would. But more importantly, this is a red herring. I don’t accept your claim that it wouldn’t, but it’s a moot point because this is not the sort of repair I would do and it’s not likely worthwhile. The anti-repair tactic that I condemn is the one that blocks owners from hacks that make the device more useful than the read-only state.

I wouldn’t consider “hacking” a drive to continue using it when you shouldn’t a repair.

(emphasis mine) This is the nannying I am calling out. If someone can make a degraded product useful again, it’s neither your place nor the manufacturers place to tell advanced users/repairers not to – to dictate what is appropriate.

As far as I’m aware it’s to comply with JEDEC standards.

It’s over-compliant. Also, we don’t give a shit about JEDEC standards after the drive is garbage. The standards are only useful during the useful life of the product. From your own source:

In the consumer space you need that time to presumably transfer your data over.

I need a couple weeks tops to transfer my data. It’s good that we get a year. Then what? The drive is as useful as a brick. And needlessly so.

I just don’t see how using a drive into the period where it’s likely to fail and lose data,

That’s because you’re not making the distinction between reading and writing, and understanding that it’s writing that fails. The fitness to write to a NAND declines gradually with each cycle. Every transistor is different. A transistor might last 11,943 cycles and it sits next to a transistor that lasts 10,392 cycles. They drew a line and said “10k writes is safe for this tech, so draw a line there and go into read-only mode when an arbitrary number of transistors have likely undergone 10k writes”.

The telemetry on the device is not sophisticated enough to track exactly when a transistor’s state becomes ambiguous. So the best they could do is keep an avg cycle count which factors in a large safety margin for error. So of course it would be an insignificant risk to do 1 (or 5) more write cycles. Even if the straw that breaks the camel’s back is on the 1 additional write operation on a particular sector, we have software that is sophisticated enough to correct it. Have a look at par2.

against specification,

It’s not “against” the spec because the spec does not specify how we may use the drive. Rightfully so. The spec says the drive must remain readable for 1 year after crossing a threshhold (which BTW is determined by write cycle counts not actual ability to store electrons).

is a good idea.

Bricking by design is a bad idea because preventable e-waste and consumerism is harmful to the environment. I write this post from a 2008 laptop that novice consumers would have declared useless 10 years ago.

Let alone a right to repair issue.

Of course it’s a right to repair issue because it’s a nannying anti-repair tactic that has prematurely forced a functional product into uselessness. I am being artificially blocked from returning the product into useful service.

I don’t think this is right to repair tbh. You can’t repair the SSD in this state?

“Repair” does not necessarily mean returning to a factory state. If a machine/appliance/device breaks and the OEM parts are no longer available, and you hack it to serve your purpose without restoring the original mint state, that’s still a repair. My bicycle is loaded after-market parts and hacks in order to keep it in service. The fact that the parts function differently does not mean they cease to repair the bike.

In the case at hand, the drive is crippled. To uncripple it to get back some of its original functionality to some extent is to repair it.

Which click “ignore” after not reading the message informing them

That’s not how it works. Though it would be feasible for an OS creator to implement such a click-through hack, that’s on them. ATM it does not exist. It’s unlikely that OS suppliers would want that liability.

A good majority of users aren’t anywhere near as tech savvy enough to understand what’s going on.

Nannying those who do know what they’re doing is not a justified propoposition when low-tech users can still be nannied nonetheless. Anyone who implements a one-click automatic dialog as you suggest would be at fault for low-tech users getting stung. Publishing an ATA password for hdparm users gives a sufficient hurdle for the tech illiterates without nannying advanced users.

That indeed makes sense from a purely practical PoV, if you neglect right to repair. But the drive maker (Apacer) is effectively denying users their right to repair through the nannying. Your approach is good for repair avoidance but still supports anti-repair suppliers in the end.

I’m pretty sure you are writing from a device that has most of his fundamental components not made in Europe but the US.

Globalisation has yielded a machine that was produced from all over the world. It’s a 2008 machine. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here but no dime of mine has gone to any PC maker anywhere since 2008. And I believe I can get another 10+ years out of this machine before I have to start using PCs that I have salvaged from curbside dumps.

Removing the possibility for us to use US tech from day one it’s non only impossible but also unnecessary.

Of course it’s necessary. As long as you are dependant on US tech giants, you don’t have ETS.

I know peertube very well, is not a replacement for YouTube.

It’s easily a replacement for content creators. Hence why I said I could not tell if it’s your content. Now that you say it’s not, then indeed options are limited to finding Invidious instances that have not been neutered for saving videos that can be shared outside of YT. Beyond that, we need someone to invent a sharing platform well suited to YT. Something that uses the basic bittorrent design with trackers that key on the video ID.

I have to say there is a bit of irony to link to Google Youtube videos.

I don’t do Youtube so can’t tell if that’s your content… but have you considered peertube?