Maybe it's just that time of the month for his nas... maybe give it some chocolat cookies and leave it alone...When did that start happening?
Maybe it's just that time of the month for his nas... maybe give it some chocolat cookies and leave it alone...When did that start happening?
A few reasons:Why unzip an archive in the system itself? Why is there even an archive in the system itself, isn't it better to let ZFS compress the files?
Why have a file manager (mc) in the system itself? Because doing things at the shell is often far more efficient than doing them through a network protocol, and the same is (often) true of file compression/uncompression.Why unzip an archive in the system itself?
Of course--but tar doesn't know how to deal with .zip, .rar, etc.Also, isn't there tar already?
I like how you used "mc" as the example. You know, because TrueNAS doesn't have an integrated web-based GUI file manager... yet. (Or maybe never.)Why have a file manager (mc) in the system itself?
which is unfortunate, as I am sure that a lot of 'newbie' truenas users (including myself) would greatly appreciate a built in, safe and supported, web based file manager, as I suspect it would alleviate a majority of reasons for people to be 'mucking things up' via ssh/cli/etc.TrueNAS doesn't have an integrated web-based GUI file manager
Even if it did, I think mc would be a better comparison as a terminal-based tool. I'd presume a web-based file manager would make the issue moot.I like how you used "mc" as the example. You know, because TrueNAS doesn't have an integrated web-based GUI file manager.
Well, iX did "accept" a suggestion for that, a few years back. Maybe we'll see it before the heat death of the universe.yet. (Or maybe never.)
Isn't it better to copy the archive to the client and then unzipping it on the client?if one has a multi-gig (or whatever large arbitrary size) archive, unzipping over the network is relatively slow.
unzipping the file locally on the server, then remotely accessing those files from directly on the server, is much faster.
Not if you only need a part of the archive on the client.Isn't it better to copy the archive to the client and then unzipping it on the client?
Or to keep that part on the server itself. (If it's within an SMB share, you'll be able to access the extracted part on the share, keeping everything on your NAS, with all its safeguards and snapshots, etc, without going back and forth from TrueNAS to a client's filesystem back to TrueNAS...)Not if you only need a part of the archive on the client.
The archive is on the NAS anyway, just compressed.Or to keep that part on the server itself. (If it's within an SMB share, you'll be able to access the extracted part on the share, keeping everything on your NAS, with all its safeguards and snapshots, etc, without going back and forth from TrueNAS to a client's filesystem back to TrueNAS...)
Ironic, since it's usually the other way around.More features are always welcomed... especially since it's already on CORE.