Avoiding hosted solutions with subscriptions is exactly why we buy NAS's. Give me a local UI with all the bells and whistles and a way to safely remote in anyday
3 non negotiable for me. No subscription, option for mixed drives, and NO cloud. My server my rules, if I want to run it offline then that's my choice. So sticking with unraid.
@@sprocket5526 I’d gladly have to have same size drives in order to get TrueNAS performance (technically you can mix drives with raidz but it’s not efficient). UNRAID does use cloud for things like flash drive backup, remote access, but you can turn all that off. However, you can’t get around a subscription any longer so…
"Local UI doesn't add any new features"... that is a very naïve statement. Bizarrely, it makes irritated and sad at the same time, so much in fact, that I almost hit the caps lock button before typing this. What I found even more concerning was the idea of how it "may" work, being that you have configure it at least initially via their website. What happens they out of business, or decide its not profitable to keep the servers going? In addition, this poses much more of a security risk, as it paints a huge target on a single-point, so when Joe the "Junior front-end developer" forgets to sanitise the HTTP request, it creates an vulnerability, exposing the details every customer and also a jump-on point to all the NAS's that are running this. If there one lesson I've learn over the past 20 years as an IT Manager, its don't buy a product based upon a vague "its on a road map", as you may as well buy a lottery ticket..
That clip you chose from the first video was exactly what turned me off to the entire project. Direct and complete control of my cloud is the absolute entry level. I'll be watching HexOS develop, since it would be nice to have an option to recommend to the photographers and RUclipsrs in my life who just want something that works.. but if I wouldn't use it, I won't recommend it.
Just started the video, but I had to say that after seeing that little montage of comments, I now need in my life a TV miniseries about a haunted cloud datacenter with a screenplay written my Stephen King. Thanks for that. :)
Not quite the same, but there's a podcast called Story Break that ran for a while where Freddie Wong and some of the RocketJump team would stories from a single prompt, and they did one that was "Steven King's I.T.". Centred around an IT department instead of a datacenter, but it's at least fun and adjacent
If they don't have this in place on launch, for me they've holed their boat before they've even launched it. Also, it raises my eyebrows how a team trying to get into the Home NAS sector could have been so out of touch with what is pretty much the fundamental base user requirement of no reliance upon internet connection to control it! Why would I be OK with having the access to all my data being held hostage by their servers, or even my own internet connection for that matter?
I was at first excited but the caveats were a major letdown for me. Especially how they responded to the (massive?) request for the local GUI. "..local UI doesn't add any new features.." It appears, they are, IMHO, missing the point why people want to use a NAS, to stay away, as much as possible, from cloud. What I personally also find quite concerning, their statement of "..we really like Plex's model" (initially), I have not heard anybody else proclaiming Plex's model was that favourable, and in fact opened the door to other, alternative solutions. But maybe I'm thinking too black-and-white in this. Then their statement that a local UI would be easier to build, versus a hosted UI. Bud, when you start a new product, start with the basics, get the easy/easier things out of the way and then start the more difficult things. Start with the basics and work you way up. And then their statement "a local UI gives less value versus a hosted UI", maybe they need to talk to their target users and (better?) understand their market? To give you a real-life example; a major switch vendor started (also) with hosted UI's on their switches. So you must have an internet-always on/connected and if somethings goes wrong (it did at one point in time) you no longer have access to your switch. AFAIK that switch vendor ceased releasing switches with a hosted UI. NAS is local first, cloud later and hosted even much much later. And subscriptions is a major no for me. Vendor locking is one of the ongoing issues with tech nowadays and should be avoided at all costs. Unless they change their ways in a major fashion, it will be a very hard pass for me. Sorry.
@@zMeul Oh, wauw, something I definitely would want to avoid unless they have a very user-friendly (and creative) implementation. (relaxed rules & regulations, easy ways to resolve disputes, failures etc) I can understand they want to protect their IP etc, but subscription services? I guess this is nowadays the we own nothing anymore time-space. Too bad, it looked so promising to me in the beginning. Let's hope things do and can change as they proclaim.
Something like how Xen/XCP-NG does Xen orchestra would probably be easiest for them to implement. A small VM appliance running the management stuff on a local machine.
Love the shirt. Your quart of Canadian maple syrup is in the mail. You're on your own for the axe. On a more serious note, if you are relying on Eshtek's security, is that security subject to a periodic audit to ensure that it stays in place and is kept up to date ?
My problem with having the management UI for the full configuration of the system being hosted is when the company determines that they are not making enough profit to cover the cost of hosting the cloud Infrastructure and development. This could lead them to consider subscriptions for x features or shutting down their servers, which would cause end users more hassles when migrating to another OS.
I think the target group to be addressed here is looking for an easy-to-use NAS as a home server - and one of the primary features is already in the first word - HomeServer, and not Cloud managed HomeServer!!!. And the exaple of Plex is one how not to do it... If you want to use cloud services, they should be opt-in functions...
I'm really confused, I understood HexOS originally as "to setup you need to be connected to the Internet, afterwards you don't need to connect to the net, however to update settings and you don't want to be connected you'll have to use TrueNas GUI (or whatever)" what was I missing?
4:05 Hangon... If it's been there since day 1... why not just add it immediately before making the cloud-capability a thing? A NAS should, in my opinion, be local-first. Any cloud management or remote-access should only come secondary as a "nice to have".
I'm sure this has been suggested before but instead of Plex why not aspire to the Ubiquiti model. Include the web hosted model for the masses, with or without lifetime subscriptions. Then also offer a self hosted management portal with regular updates be that via a VM or explore the opportunity to sell a low (ish) cost hardware accessory. Even if the VM / container is hosted on the device you mitigate against anything but protocol abuse to externally leveraged attacks. Surely they could implement a docker solution of their existing management portal with the ability to specify a personalised IP for the management. This also sidesteps the inherant EOL of the NAS deployment should they as a company fail.
extra points of failure is a huge no no for me *shrug* not a fan of outside stuff having access to my network in any way shape or form... and I don't need access to my nas outside my network and if I do I have VPN for that...
did they never learned that Ubi customers could access eachother camera feeds trough the UI account, and it wasn't a single time occurrence remote only UI access is lunacy
I don't get why people are so butthurt about this. It is ONLY for access to control the servers. You can access all your data completely offline. It is just for managment of the server. This makes it MUCH easier to setup. I personally think this is a great idea! Yes there is security concerns, but that goes for ANY service you use. Just like if you are going do drive somewhere, there is always the risk of getting hit by somone. Do we let that prevent us from driving altogether? No. This applies to any use of networking.
I'm not driving a mini metro, I'm not driving a mini metro, I'm not driving a mini metro. Go on, ask me to try a cloud hosted UI only with no local option and see what I do.
I think I said it in the last vid - the web managed restriction feels like their attempt a securing their IP for a single payment product - a DRM system of sorts. Obviously, a subscription based service wouldn't need it. No, this is NOT a vote for a subscription model.
What's the point of a NAS if I have to go through an always-online third party anyway? There's a reason I'm spending all this money on hardware (and electricity) and take on the additional headache of redundancy and backups and everything else. I build my own NAS specifically to not have to be always online and not have to sign up for an account and not have to rely on a third party service to remain operational indefinitely. For my needs, HexOS have disqualified themselves. This "the local UI might just be an optional container" proposition is plainly not good enough. And neither is "we'll add it to the roadmap". HexOS have already made it clear that a local only solution is just an afterthought for them. I'd rather just install Debian and manage everything through an SSH shell.
The local UI doesn't really need to be separate code though. You could just have the local UI be the exact same as the hosted code, but running locally. Saying it's not possible shows a lack of imagination and thought about the process and product.
It's a paid tutorial for truenas, it seems to offer nothing more than workflow around something a youtube video can show you in 10 minutes. Who is the target market for this, because home users who can't use google, likely aren't building their own nas. It's got hyped up as something to take on unraid, or improve truenas, it does nether.
When Linus first talked about this (before we knew the name) I was interested. People who had worked at Limetech, wanted to make an better NAS, etc etc. Then I found out its just an more fancy gui for truenas and I lost all interest. Locking people to zfs is not an good idea for an typical home user Nope, keeping Unraid
They shot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned. It should be local first then add on secure remote later. Home users are more and more being hacked via remote doorways. No HexOS for me. Too bad.
Glad they now are looking to make this a local UI instead of hosted. This really was a hard no. Perhaps some users would prefer online access, but most broad based users ... the little guy like me with a file server at home ... doesnt need remote access, and isnt interested in one day finding my system borked in the case that HexOS shuts down for whatever reason. Just imagine the nightmare there. I would not be surprised if a real market study showed low level home users as the primary group here, a group not interested in the advanced access needs of an online UI. We just want access to our files, when we want it, and dont need to be tied to our ISP to do so. Make it local ... or I just wont.
Soo... it's TrueNAS (not a different NAS SW) with an internet-connected-only overlay to make it "simpler"? Why exactly should anyone pay for that? Simpler is already available with pre-build solutions like Synology. TrueNAS is already available as is. Removal of local access is a removal of a feature. Not an addition. And making it so that it has to be connected to the internet is ignorant at best, malicious at worst. But of course it comes with a "Trust me, bro!" guarantee that your data is safe. No wonder Linus sponsored it (partly).
This is pure Bullshit on the HEXOS folks. Are they really saying all the UI is hosted in the cloud? It's somehow easier to create a cloud link than host a webserver on the host. Every other server OS has a webservice of some sort built-in. Even just enabling a package like cockpit would work. Freaking ridiculous.
I think people are being a little ridiculous about this. It's not like Plex where it becomes useless if the internet is out, as you can still access the TrueNAS Scale UI which is even more powerful etc.
But im not paying for TrueNAS Scale UI… im paying for HexOS. In fact, HexOS’s main marketing is that its NOT TrueNAS’s UI. Saying I cant use what I paid for because a free option is available is not a good excuse.
@@haydenlong3764 They’ve said they’ll do a local version down the road. If not having one is a dealbreaker for you, don’t pay for it, or go learn TrueNAS Scale and the requisite skills in admin, Docker, reverse proxy, VPN, etc., like I did, and don’t pay anything at all.
There are a multitude of reasons to run your own NAS. The learning curve for most of those is fairly steep, and HexOS is interesting precisely because the intent is to flatten the curve while building on a NAS OS that is proven, reliable and stable. BUT.. if you have to rely on a third party for security and management, lose the ability to manage locally when the internet goes down and need to learn TrueNAS anyway... what's the point? Just skip the middleman.
@@cameronfrye5514 Exactly. It just strikes me as odd people wanting to pay to be spoon-fed then whining they aren’t being spoon-fed exactly the way they want.
Avoiding hosted solutions with subscriptions is exactly why we buy NAS's. Give me a local UI with all the bells and whistles and a way to safely remote in anyday
Local UI are table stakes. No point in talking about any features until you have this fundamental capability.
3 non negotiable for me. No subscription, option for mixed drives, and NO cloud. My server my rules, if I want to run it offline then that's my choice. So sticking with unraid.
@@sprocket5526 I’d gladly have to have same size drives in order to get TrueNAS performance (technically you can mix drives with raidz but it’s not efficient). UNRAID does use cloud for things like flash drive backup, remote access, but you can turn all that off. However, you can’t get around a subscription any longer so…
"Local UI doesn't add any new features"... that is a very naïve statement. Bizarrely, it makes irritated and sad at the same time, so much in fact, that I almost hit the caps lock button before typing this. What I found even more concerning was the idea of how it "may" work, being that you have configure it at least initially via their website.
What happens they out of business, or decide its not profitable to keep the servers going? In addition, this poses much more of a security risk, as it paints a huge target on a single-point, so when Joe the "Junior front-end developer" forgets to sanitise the HTTP request, it creates an vulnerability, exposing the details every customer and also a jump-on point to all the NAS's that are running this.
If there one lesson I've learn over the past 20 years as an IT Manager, its don't buy a product based upon a vague "its on a road map", as you may as well buy a lottery ticket..
Wonder how Linus will respond to this
Yep. Another vague statement these types like to make: "it's down the stack". 💀
Local management only. No hosted devices. I refuse to rely on any network device that requires me to remotely manage and configure them.
The local UI should be the more feature rich, not the other way around
That clip you chose from the first video was exactly what turned me off to the entire project. Direct and complete control of my cloud is the absolute entry level. I'll be watching HexOS develop, since it would be nice to have an option to recommend to the photographers and RUclipsrs in my life who just want something that works.. but if I wouldn't use it, I won't recommend it.
Just started the video, but I had to say that after seeing that little montage of comments, I now need in my life a TV miniseries about a haunted cloud datacenter with a screenplay written my Stephen King.
Thanks for that. :)
FUCKING HELL!!! SOMEONE GET ME A PEN, NOW
Not quite the same, but there's a podcast called Story Break that ran for a while where Freddie Wong and some of the RocketJump team would stories from a single prompt, and they did one that was "Steven King's I.T.". Centred around an IT department instead of a datacenter, but it's at least fun and adjacent
If they don't have this in place on launch, for me they've holed their boat before they've even launched it. Also, it raises my eyebrows how a team trying to get into the Home NAS sector could have been so out of touch with what is pretty much the fundamental base user requirement of no reliance upon internet connection to control it! Why would I be OK with having the access to all my data being held hostage by their servers, or even my own internet connection for that matter?
I was at first excited but the caveats were a major letdown for me.
Especially how they responded to the (massive?) request for the local GUI.
"..local UI doesn't add any new features.."
It appears, they are, IMHO, missing the point why people want to use a NAS, to stay away, as much as possible, from cloud.
What I personally also find quite concerning, their statement of "..we really like Plex's model" (initially), I have not heard anybody else proclaiming Plex's model was that favourable, and in fact opened the door to other, alternative solutions. But maybe I'm thinking too black-and-white in this.
Then their statement that a local UI would be easier to build, versus a hosted UI.
Bud, when you start a new product, start with the basics, get the easy/easier things out of the way and then start the more difficult things.
Start with the basics and work you way up.
And then their statement "a local UI gives less value versus a hosted UI", maybe they need to talk to their target users and (better?) understand their market?
To give you a real-life example; a major switch vendor started (also) with hosted UI's on their switches. So you must have an internet-always on/connected and if somethings goes wrong (it did at one point in time) you no longer have access to your switch. AFAIK that switch vendor ceased releasing switches with a hosted UI.
NAS is local first, cloud later and hosted even much much later.
And subscriptions is a major no for me.
Vendor locking is one of the ongoing issues with tech nowadays and should be avoided at all costs.
Unless they change their ways in a major fashion, it will be a very hard pass for me.
Sorry.
they're more than likely aiming for subscription services
@@zMeul Oh, wauw, something I definitely would want to avoid unless they have a very user-friendly (and creative) implementation.
(relaxed rules & regulations, easy ways to resolve disputes, failures etc)
I can understand they want to protect their IP etc, but subscription services?
I guess this is nowadays the we own nothing anymore time-space.
Too bad, it looked so promising to me in the beginning.
Let's hope things do and can change as they proclaim.
Something like how Xen/XCP-NG does Xen orchestra would probably be easiest for them to implement. A small VM appliance running the management stuff on a local machine.
I reckon that most of the people making a fuss wont be deploying HexOS when it eventually launches.
Love the shirt. Your quart of Canadian maple syrup is in the mail. You're on your own for the axe.
On a more serious note, if you are relying on Eshtek's security, is that security subject to a periodic audit to ensure that it stays in place and is kept up to date ?
My problem with having the management UI for the full configuration of the system being hosted is when the company determines that they are not making enough profit to cover the cost of hosting the cloud Infrastructure and development. This could lead them to consider subscriptions for x features or shutting down their servers, which would cause end users more hassles when migrating to another OS.
I think the target group to be addressed here is looking for an easy-to-use NAS as a home server - and one of the primary features is already in the first word - HomeServer, and not Cloud managed HomeServer!!!. And the exaple of Plex is one how not to do it... If you want to use cloud services, they should be opt-in functions...
The online GUI and not being able to mix drives and upgrade the way Unraid is is just a missed opportunity for the public their aiming for
NO DEAL
I'm really confused, I understood HexOS originally as "to setup you need to be connected to the Internet, afterwards you don't need to connect to the net, however to update settings and you don't want to be connected you'll have to use TrueNas GUI (or whatever)" what was I missing?
4:05 Hangon... If it's been there since day 1... why not just add it immediately before making the cloud-capability a thing?
A NAS should, in my opinion, be local-first.
Any cloud management or remote-access should only come secondary as a "nice to have".
I'm sure this has been suggested before but instead of Plex why not aspire to the Ubiquiti model. Include the web hosted model for the masses, with or without lifetime subscriptions. Then also offer a self hosted management portal with regular updates be that via a VM or explore the opportunity to sell a low (ish) cost hardware accessory. Even if the VM / container is hosted on the device you mitigate against anything but protocol abuse to externally leveraged attacks.
Surely they could implement a docker solution of their existing management portal with the ability to specify a personalised IP for the management. This also sidesteps the inherant EOL of the NAS deployment should they as a company fail.
extra points of failure is a huge no no for me *shrug* not a fan of outside stuff having access to my network in any way shape or form... and I don't need access to my nas outside my network and if I do I have VPN for that...
did they never learned that Ubi customers could access eachother camera feeds trough the UI account, and it wasn't a single time occurrence
remote only UI access is lunacy
I don't get why people are so butthurt about this. It is ONLY for access to control the servers. You can access all your data completely offline. It is just for managment of the server. This makes it MUCH easier to setup. I personally think this is a great idea! Yes there is security concerns, but that goes for ANY service you use. Just like if you are going do drive somewhere, there is always the risk of getting hit by somone. Do we let that prevent us from driving altogether? No. This applies to any use of networking.
If an os requires web based ui (pain disconnecting vpn every time i need to access it) should provide an app for access when away from home network.
I'm not driving a mini metro, I'm not driving a mini metro, I'm not driving a mini metro. Go on, ask me to try a cloud hosted UI only with no local option and see what I do.
I think I said it in the last vid - the web managed restriction feels like their attempt a securing their IP for a single payment product - a DRM system of sorts. Obviously, a subscription based service wouldn't need it. No, this is NOT a vote for a subscription model.
What's the point of a NAS if I have to go through an always-online third party anyway? There's a reason I'm spending all this money on hardware (and electricity) and take on the additional headache of redundancy and backups and everything else. I build my own NAS specifically to not have to be always online and not have to sign up for an account and not have to rely on a third party service to remain operational indefinitely. For my needs, HexOS have disqualified themselves.
This "the local UI might just be an optional container" proposition is plainly not good enough. And neither is "we'll add it to the roadmap". HexOS have already made it clear that a local only solution is just an afterthought for them. I'd rather just install Debian and manage everything through an SSH shell.
OMG I'm in the vid - Finally!
Not to be hyperbolic, but this is really starting to sound like they've fundamentally misunderstood the audience they think they're selling to...
The local UI doesn't really need to be separate code though. You could just have the local UI be the exact same as the hosted code, but running locally.
Saying it's not possible shows a lack of imagination and thought about the process and product.
Where can I buy the Hoodie? Mo Data Mo Problems. Its Great!
If you look just below the video but just above the comments you should see a link called "store". They have it there. Cheers.
@@SocialWorkProfessor That's just it. There is no link called "store". Thanks for your reply though.
I wont be using it due to the way there doing the local ui
It's a paid tutorial for truenas, it seems to offer nothing more than workflow around something a youtube video can show you in 10 minutes. Who is the target market for this, because home users who can't use google, likely aren't building their own nas. It's got hyped up as something to take on unraid, or improve truenas, it does nether.
When Linus first talked about this (before we knew the name) I was interested.
People who had worked at Limetech, wanted to make an better NAS, etc etc.
Then I found out its just an more fancy gui for truenas and I lost all interest.
Locking people to zfs is not an good idea for an typical home user
Nope, keeping Unraid
Not FOSS so yeah...nah. I'll just stick with Synology until I can build a FOSS alternative.
They shot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned. It should be local first then add on secure remote later. Home users are more and more being hacked via remote doorways. No HexOS for me. Too bad.
Yeah.....this is a big NO for me
Glad they now are looking to make this a local UI instead of hosted.
This really was a hard no.
Perhaps some users would prefer online access, but most broad based users ... the little guy like me with a file server at home ... doesnt need remote access, and isnt interested in one day finding my system borked in the case that HexOS shuts down for whatever reason.
Just imagine the nightmare there.
I would not be surprised if a real market study showed low level home users as the primary group here, a group not interested in the advanced access needs of an online UI. We just want access to our files, when we want it, and dont need to be tied to our ISP to do so.
Make it local ... or I just wont.
Soo... it's TrueNAS (not a different NAS SW) with an internet-connected-only overlay to make it "simpler"? Why exactly should anyone pay for that? Simpler is already available with pre-build solutions like Synology. TrueNAS is already available as is. Removal of local access is a removal of a feature. Not an addition. And making it so that it has to be connected to the internet is ignorant at best, malicious at worst. But of course it comes with a "Trust me, bro!" guarantee that your data is safe. No wonder Linus sponsored it (partly).
This is pure Bullshit on the HEXOS folks. Are they really saying all the UI is hosted in the cloud? It's somehow easier to create a cloud link than host a webserver on the host. Every other server OS has a webservice of some sort built-in. Even just enabling a package like cockpit would work. Freaking ridiculous.
Enshitification creeps into NAS space. HexOS is not even worth talking about.
I think people are being a little ridiculous about this. It's not like Plex where it becomes useless if the internet is out, as you can still access the TrueNAS Scale UI which is even more powerful etc.
But im not paying for TrueNAS Scale UI… im paying for HexOS. In fact, HexOS’s main marketing is that its NOT TrueNAS’s UI. Saying I cant use what I paid for because a free option is available is not a good excuse.
@@haydenlong3764 They’ve said they’ll do a local version down the road. If not having one is a dealbreaker for you, don’t pay for it, or go learn TrueNAS Scale and the requisite skills in admin, Docker, reverse proxy, VPN, etc., like I did, and don’t pay anything at all.
There are a multitude of reasons to run your own NAS. The learning curve for most of those is fairly steep, and HexOS is interesting precisely because the intent is to flatten the curve while building on a NAS OS that is proven, reliable and stable. BUT.. if you have to rely on a third party for security and management, lose the ability to manage locally when the internet goes down and need to learn TrueNAS anyway... what's the point? Just skip the middleman.
@@cameronfrye5514 Exactly. It just strikes me as odd people wanting to pay to be spoon-fed then whining they aren’t being spoon-fed exactly the way they want.
Plex doesn’t become useless when the internet goes out. If you have configured it properly, it still works locally.