←back to thread

The Synology End Game

(lowendbox.com)
452 points amacbride | 3 comments | 29 Aug 25 06:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
exmadscientist ◴[29 Aug 25 09:49 UTC] No.45062103[source]▶
A big part of the appeal of Synology was that you could just forget about it. I have a little one in the corner that's just been sitting there serving files out over SMB for years now. It doesn't need to do anything more and I don't need to think about it.

A lot of the alternatives being proposed are not so easy to maintain. A full general purpose OS install doesn't really take care of itself. And I don't have (and don't want) a 19-inch rack at home. Ever.

So what's the set-up-and-forget-until-it-gets-kicked-over option?

replies(13): >>45062180 #>>45062219 #>>45062300 #>>45062590 #>>45062803 #>>45062819 #>>45063449 #>>45066493 #>>45067267 #>>45067468 #>>45067497 #>>45067832 #>>45068735 #
1. davkan ◴[29 Aug 25 10:06 UTC] No.45062219[source]▶
If all you’re doing is an smb share i don’t see how a windows box is any more effort to maintain.
replies(1): >>45062560 #
2. dvdkon ◴[29 Aug 25 11:08 UTC] No.45062560[source]▶
For one, a Synology box won't get into the habit of restarting for ten minutes daily because Windows Update managed to break itself and keeps retrying the same update.

But it's true that you could probably leave a desktop on "NAS duty" for years unattended without anything really major happening, especially if it's only accessible on a local network.

replies(1): >>45062737 #
3. sokoloff ◴[29 Aug 25 11:39 UTC] No.45062737[source]▶
It’s true that Synology boxes don’t spend anywhere near as much time taking security updates.

That’s not always for good reasons, though.