Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #80374 > unrolled thread

Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-03 01:04 +0000
    Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-03 02:23 +0100
      Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:16 -0500
    Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 02:00 +0000
      Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 22:20 -0500
        Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 12:28 +0000
          Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 08:07 -0500
      Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-03 14:09 +0000
        Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 18:06 +0000
          Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-03 20:20 +0000
        Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 22:07 +0000
          Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-03 22:45 +0000
            Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 23:12 +0000
              Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-04 04:39 +0000
                Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-04 04:53 +0000
                Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-01-03 21:10 -0800
                  Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-04 06:20 +0000
                  Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-06 12:42 +0100
                Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-04 06:13 +0000
          Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 01:26 +0000
            Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-04 06:24 +0000
    Re: Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-01-03 08:28 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#80374 — Rebuilding Linux Workstation/Server - and building a NAS?

A month ago I decided that I needed to replace the hardware under my
Linux Server/Workstation. As I was gaming out the migration, I realized
that the hard drives were 10-15 years old, and SMART declared them to
be "Pre-Fail - Old Age", so I bought a couple of new 2TB Seagate
Barracuda drives to fit in two of the 3 HDD slots in the "new" 5 year
old chassis, leaving the last one for future expansion. The system disk
is a 500GB SDD drive.

That leaves me with a handful of 1TB drives from this system and 2
Windows boxes that were 10-15 years old and whose CPUs were too
old for Windows-11. My thought is that I ought to make a NAS with
mirrored drives out of them. Even if they are nearing end-of-life, they
should work OK in a RAID-1 confuguration.

1) Is that a reasonable thought?

For a stack of 4 drives, I need an enclosure that has 4 (or 5?) bays.
L:ooking over the choices on Amazon, it looks like the diskless starter
set for that is going to be around $550 - $650.

2) Is there a cheaper way to do it? Maybe a cabinet without a
processor that has an eSATA connector on the outside and just
presents itself as the 4 drives, letting the host manage them?

3) Is it worth it to pay a bit extra to get a box that lets me load
my own favorite Linux distro instead of the fixed-function NAS
package?

Between this newsgroup and "the geeky group" I am sure someone has been
down this path before and has ideas and experience to share.
-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#80377

On 2026-01-03 02:04, Lars Poulsen wrote:

...

> For a stack of 4 drives, I need an enclosure that has 4 (or 5?) bays.
> L:ooking over the choices on Amazon, it looks like the diskless starter
> set for that is going to be around $550 - $650.
> 
> 2) Is there a cheaper way to do it? Maybe a cabinet without a
> processor that has an eSATA connector on the outside and just
> presents itself as the 4 drives, letting the host manage them?

Those boxes exist, at least with one USB cable outgoing. I have two 
boxes, 5 disk slots each, and built a software raid 6 array on them (8 
disks). Two times so far it suddenly crashes and an entire box drops out 
and I have to rebuild the array.

The thing has its own processor.

It is very slow, but there is another version iwht USB 3.1 that should 
be a bit faster. And the computer is slow itself.

There is another version of the box that does hardware raid.

Yottamaster.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80385

On 1/2/26 20:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-01-03 02:04, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> For a stack of 4 drives, I need an enclosure that has 4 (or 5?) bays.
>> L:ooking over the choices on Amazon, it looks like the diskless starter
>> set for that is going to be around $550 - $650.
>>
>> 2) Is there a cheaper way to do it? Maybe a cabinet without a
>> processor that has an eSATA connector on the outside and just
>> presents itself as the 4 drives, letting the host manage them?
> 
> Those boxes exist, at least with one USB cable outgoing. I have two 
> boxes, 5 disk slots each, and built a software raid 6 array on them (8 
> disks). Two times so far it suddenly crashes and an entire box drops out 
> and I have to rebuild the array.
> 
> The thing has its own processor.
> 
> It is very slow, but there is another version iwht USB 3.1 that should 
> be a bit faster. And the computer is slow itself.
> 
> There is another version of the box that does hardware raid.

   I've done a number of those things ... one had NINE drives
   inside, had to build a couple of holders for them from that
   half-inch aluminum angle you can get at the stores. Also
   added an aux fan. Many motherboards have only a few SATA
   plugs these days, many just TWO. However several people
   sell multi-SATA PCI cards for a fair price. Some have HW
   RAID, but with Linux you're probably better off using
   softRAID.

   Made two RAID-1 sets for the 'most important' data and
   the rest of the space was for 'other junk' and limited
   on-server backups of the important stuff. It all worked
   very well.

   Made another similar unit, but with OpenMediaVault
   on it ... it's actually quite good at this point.
   DO route read/writes THROUGH that system though
   or it won't see what you wrote, some kind of
   indexing system. You CAN mount an SMB share from a
   script ON the unit to the 'official' drives and then
   write to that mount ... then it's all legal, thinks
   it's some other attached workstation doing the R/W.

   An alt is to get a dedicated NAS unit - Synology is very
   good. These come with 2-8 drive bays and offer a high
   speed port so you can parallel another unit. Fair selection
   of software. Sinology does run on Linux - I did write
   some dedicated scripts and little utilities for it
   (but do NOT store those in any core 'system' dir or
   they'll go away next update). Utils for on-boot and
   other crontab-ish stuff are included and cloud and
   FTP backup utils too.

   But they're kinda expensive - and dunno what the
   tariff wars may have done to prices at the moment.

   Funnest bit was a util that would find a technically
   unplugged big external USB drive, write some critical
   backups, then make it think it was unplugged again.
   It's some HIGH-numbered USB /dev ... Vlad can't find
   yer stuff if the drive is essentially disconnected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80383

On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:

> A month ago I decided that I needed to replace the hardware under my
> Linux Server/Workstation. As I was gaming out the migration, I realized
> that the hard drives were 10-15 years old, and SMART declared them to
> be "Pre-Fail - Old Age", so I bought a couple of new 2TB Seagate
> Barracuda drives [...]

Where is the CMR cut-off in Seagate's Barracuda offering, between 1 and
2 TB or between 2 and 3 TB?

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80393

On 1/2/26 21:00, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> 
>> A month ago I decided that I needed to replace the hardware under my
>> Linux Server/Workstation. As I was gaming out the migration, I realized
>> that the hard drives were 10-15 years old, and SMART declared them to
>> be "Pre-Fail - Old Age", so I bought a couple of new 2TB Seagate
>> Barracuda drives [...]
> 
> Where is the CMR cut-off in Seagate's Barracuda offering, between 1 and
> 2 TB or between 2 and 3 TB?

   You can get WD Golds up to 20tb ... Blacks up to 10tb.

   And yea, DOES pay to run SMART every so often.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80412

On 2026-01-03, c186282 wrote:

> On 1/2/26 21:00, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>
>>> A month ago I decided that I needed to replace the hardware under my
>>> Linux Server/Workstation. As I was gaming out the migration, I realized
>>> that the hard drives were 10-15 years old, and SMART declared them to
>>> be "Pre-Fail - Old Age", so I bought a couple of new 2TB Seagate
>>> Barracuda drives [...]
>>
>> Where is the CMR cut-off in Seagate's Barracuda offering, between 1 and
>> 2 TB or between 2 and 3 TB?
>
>   You can get WD Golds up to 20tb ... Blacks up to 10tb.

Yeah, but it's a shame that some other product lines which used to have
decent offerings now don't.

In this specific case, IIRC at least 1TB 3.5" and 1 and 2 TB 2.5" under
the "Barracuda" line would be SMR, last I checked.

With WD, yes, I think I recall I'd probably have to buy from the Black
line now. Or at least one time the only good offering in a store was a
WD Black.

>   And yea, DOES pay to run SMART every so often.

(While I can't say I have much experience in this area,)

And to run it through time, right from when the disk starts being used,
so that you can see variations, not just what gets flagged by the
utility checking SMART data. Check what you want logged regularly if
using smartd, for example.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80413

On 1/3/26 07:28, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-01-03, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 1/2/26 21:00, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>> On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> A month ago I decided that I needed to replace the hardware under my
>>>> Linux Server/Workstation. As I was gaming out the migration, I realized
>>>> that the hard drives were 10-15 years old, and SMART declared them to
>>>> be "Pre-Fail - Old Age", so I bought a couple of new 2TB Seagate
>>>> Barracuda drives [...]
>>>
>>> Where is the CMR cut-off in Seagate's Barracuda offering, between 1 and
>>> 2 TB or between 2 and 3 TB?
>>
>>    You can get WD Golds up to 20tb ... Blacks up to 10tb.
> 
> Yeah, but it's a shame that some other product lines which used to have
> decent offerings now don't.
> 
> In this specific case, IIRC at least 1TB 3.5" and 1 and 2 TB 2.5" under
> the "Barracuda" line would be SMR, last I checked.
> 
> With WD, yes, I think I recall I'd probably have to buy from the Black
> line now. Or at least one time the only good offering in a store was a
> WD Black.

   I have some Golds and Blacks ... all very good.
   Technically the Blacks are faster, but as we
   were talking NAS here the I/O to the client
   boxes and NAS processing overhead pretty much nukes
   any speed advantage a drive may have. RELIABILITY,
   not so much speed, is paramount for an NAS box.

>>    And yea, DOES pay to run SMART every so often.
> 
> (While I can't say I have much experience in this area,)
> 
> And to run it through time, right from when the disk starts being used,
> so that you can see variations, not just what gets flagged by the
> utility checking SMART data. Check what you want logged regularly if
> using smartd, for example.

   Well, the 'standard report' isn't THAT long. Some
   of the stats are oddly framed however, hard to tell
   what it considers to be 'normal'.

   I do agree that new drives should be tested in order
   to get a base line. A monthly test thereafter. Do
   not think it'd be SO hard to write an app that can
   compare saved reports and look for trends, and most
   especially check for certain keywords. Then it all
   can be automated, out of yer hair, UNLESS something
   is going seriously wrong. I did a very crude version
   of that some years ago, just looking for a few FAIL-
   related keywords. If found, it sent me an e-mail.
   Caught two or three dying drives before they died.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80417

On 2026-01-03, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>
>> A month ago I decided that I needed to replace the hardware under my
>> Linux Server/Workstation. As I was gaming out the migration, I realized
>> that the hard drives were 10-15 years old, and SMART declared them to
>> be "Pre-Fail - Old Age", so I bought a couple of new 2TB Seagate
>> Barracuda drives [...]

> Where is the CMR cut-off in Seagate's Barracuda offering, between 1 and
> 2 TB or between 2 and 3 TB?

Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like "organic
farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)

https://www.seagate.com/products/cmr-smr-list/

Branding is tricky. I thought that "Barracuda" was a premium brand,
but apparently that no longer applies. The good stuff is now "Barracuda
Pro".

"Barracuda Pro" is all CMR, up to 10TB and above.
Plain "Barracuda" is SMR (shingled recording) from 2TB and up,
i.e. it is now a "consumer" brand.

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80420

On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:

> On 2026-01-03, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>
>>> A month ago I decided that I needed to replace the hardware under my
>>> Linux Server/Workstation. As I was gaming out the migration, I realized
>>> that the hard drives were 10-15 years old, and SMART declared them to
>>> be "Pre-Fail - Old Age", so I bought a couple of new 2TB Seagate
>>> Barracuda drives [...]
>
>> Where is the CMR cut-off in Seagate's Barracuda offering, between 1 and
>> 2 TB or between 2 and 3 TB?
>
> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like "organic
> farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)
>
> https://www.seagate.com/products/cmr-smr-list/
>
> Branding is tricky. I thought that "Barracuda" was a premium brand,
> but apparently that no longer applies. The good stuff is now "Barracuda
> Pro".
>
> "Barracuda Pro" is all CMR, up to 10TB and above.
> Plain "Barracuda" is SMR (shingled recording) from 2TB and up,
> i.e. it is now a "consumer" brand.

Oh, that looks even worse than I thought, I misremembered.

If you're using these on a NAS, I guess that unless they're old enough
to be CMR, or you have some plan to handle SMR, or certainty that it
won't be an issue, you probably want to return these and get CMR ones if
possible.

Even without NAS, there will be performance degradation. With NAS and
RAID, one issue that broke out with Western Digital not disclosing the
SMR nature of drives (and worse, branding some of them as appropriate
for such uses?) is that the slowness may be perceived as a drive failure
in such systems.

I've read people explain (on the gentoo-user mailing-list, IIRC) that
one can take advantage of SMR if it's host-managed, besides there being
filesystems more adequate for use with SMR. But, unless this is part of
your plan, it's probably better to avoid it?

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80429

On 2026-01-03, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>
>> On 2026-01-03, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-01-03, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> A month ago I decided that I needed to replace the hardware under my
>>>> Linux Server/Workstation. As I was gaming out the migration, I realized
>>>> that the hard drives were 10-15 years old, and SMART declared them to
>>>> be "Pre-Fail - Old Age", so I bought a couple of new 2TB Seagate
>>>> Barracuda drives [...]
>>
>>> Where is the CMR cut-off in Seagate's Barracuda offering, between 1 and
>>> 2 TB or between 2 and 3 TB?
>>
>> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like "organic
>> farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)
>>
>> https://www.seagate.com/products/cmr-smr-list/
>>
>> Branding is tricky. I thought that "Barracuda" was a premium brand,
>> but apparently that no longer applies. The good stuff is now "Barracuda
>> Pro".
>>
>> "Barracuda Pro" is all CMR, up to 10TB and above.
>> Plain "Barracuda" is SMR (shingled recording) from 2TB and up,
>> i.e. it is now a "consumer" brand.
>
> Oh, that looks even worse than I thought, I misremembered.
>
> If you're using these on a NAS, I guess that unless they're old enough
> to be CMR, or you have some plan to handle SMR, or certainty that it
> won't be an issue, you probably want to return these and get CMR ones if
> possible.
>
> Even without NAS, there will be performance degradation. With NAS and
> RAID, one issue that broke out with Western Digital not disclosing the
> SMR nature of drives (and worse, branding some of them as appropriate
> for such uses?) is that the slowness may be perceived as a drive failure
> in such systems.
>
> I've read people explain (on the gentoo-user mailing-list, IIRC) that
> one can take advantage of SMR if it's host-managed, besides there being
> filesystems more adequate for use with SMR. But, unless this is part of
> your plan, it's probably better to avoid it?

I thought I had done some homework by asking Edge AI to compare field
operational qualities between WD and Seagate. The answers never
mentioned CMR vs SMR. I did not open the boxes yet, so I could send
them back to Amazon and postpone the physical rebuild for another
week, must that feels like procrastination.

I am hoping that newer drives will have onboard firmware that do ECC
correction, error counting and remapping, so that I can monitor it
and catch degradation with SMARTCTL. Is that realistic?

Two replace two 2TB SMR drives with either two 4TB will double the
price of the new drives.

    2TB Barracuda       $71
    4TB Barracuda      $193
    14TB Barracuda Pro $400

And there are and endless variation of Seagate HDD brands:
- Constellation
- Enterprise Capacity
- Pipeline
- Skyhawk Lite
- Skyhawk
- Skyhawk SV
- Skyhawk Pro
- Ironwolf
- Ironwolf Pro
    .. and more. But while the Skyhawk are mostly CMR, they are
advertized SOLELY for video surveillance applications and with
data recovery algoriths that allow repairs of glitches in video
data, so I would not touch them for my general purpose storage.
While the non-pro Barracudas and Ironwolf are supposed to have 4TB
variants, those seem not to be available on Amazon right now,
except as "renewed", and I don't think I'd want that.
-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80439

On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 14:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:

> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like
> "organic farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)

Except “Organic” is a trade mark, don’t you know? So you need to
license it, and pass a certification to do so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80440

On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 14:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
>
>> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like
>> "organic farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)
>
> Except “Organic” is a trade mark, don’t you know? So you need to
> license it, and pass a certification to do so.

I wonder how much in royalties organic chemists have to pay
in order to talk about their profession...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80442

On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 22:45:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 14:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like
>>> "organic farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)
>>
>> Except “Organic” is a trade mark, don’t you know? So you need to
>> license it, and pass a certification to do so.
>
> I wonder how much in royalties organic chemists have to pay in order
> to talk about their profession...

Particularly since “Organic” farming is supposed to be “chemical-free”
... or something ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80448

On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 22:45:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 14:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like
>>>> "organic farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)
>>>
>>> Except “Organic” is a trade mark, don’t you know? So you need to
>>> license it, and pass a certification to do so.
>>
>> I wonder how much in royalties organic chemists have to pay in order
>> to talk about their profession...
>
> Particularly since “Organic” farming is supposed to be “chemical-free”
> ... or something ...

What I want to know is: What is inorganic food?
Maybe it's a good source of iron...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80449

On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 04:39:14 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Particularly since “Organic” farming is supposed to be
>> “chemical-free” ... or something ...
>
> What I want to know is: What is inorganic food? Maybe it's a good
> source of iron...

I wonder what they would do if you set up a shop where the goods were
“guaranteed organic-free” ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80450

On 1/3/26 20:39, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 22:45:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 14:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like
>>>>> "organic farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)
>>>>
>>>> Except “Organic” is a trade mark, don’t you know? So you need to
>>>> license it, and pass a certification to do so.
>>>
>>> I wonder how much in royalties organic chemists have to pay in order
>>> to talk about their profession...
>>
>> Particularly since “Organic” farming is supposed to be “chemical-free”
>> ... or something ...
> 
> What I want to know is: What is inorganic food?
> Maybe it's a good source of iron...
> 

	Some people eat clay. This illness or confusion is called "pica".
	They seem to get some copper from it...

	bliss

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80454

On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 21:10:08 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

> 	Some people eat clay. This illness or confusion is called "pica".
> 	They seem to get some copper from it...

Kaopectate used to be primarily kaolin. I don't know why they went to a 
bismuth compound.

Kaolin did replace zeolite in QuikClot. Zeolite was exothermic and was 
something like cauterizing the wound with a hot poker, Kaolin is gentler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80572

On 2026-01-04 06:10, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 1/3/26 20:39, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2026 22:45:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 14:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like
>>>>>> "organic farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)
>>>>>
>>>>> Except “Organic” is a trade mark, don’t you know? So you need to
>>>>> license it, and pass a certification to do so.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how much in royalties organic chemists have to pay in order
>>>> to talk about their profession...
>>>
>>> Particularly since “Organic” farming is supposed to be “chemical-free”
>>> ... or something ...
>>
>> What I want to know is: What is inorganic food?

Water.

>> Maybe it's a good source of iron...
>>
> 
>      Some people eat clay. This illness or confusion is called "pica".
>      They seem to get some copper from it...

Today? It was the fashion on the XVII. You can see it in the picture 
"Las meninas" by  Diego Velázquez.

<https://www.bbc.com/mundo/vert-cul-54802890> (Spanish)

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80453

On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 04:39:14 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> What I want to know is: What is inorganic food?
> Maybe it's a good source of iron...

Something imported from China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine

I don't think the adulterated milk made it to the US but they killed off 
some cats and dogs.

https://www.petage.com/10-years-later-examining-the-pet-food-industry-a-
decade-after-the-widespread-melamine-contamination/

Even that is technically organic. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80446

On 2026-01-03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 14:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:
>
>> Oh, the things I don't know. I had to look up CMR. (It's like
>> "organic farming"- we used to just call it "farming".)
>
> Except “Organic” is a trade mark, don’t you know? So you need to
> license it, and pass a certification to do so.

Besides that it probably shouldn't have been granted to begin with, how
would such a trademark be enforceable?

One thing is calling your record company or computer business "Apple",
another thing is using an adjective as trademark, even if it were not
common to use "organic" to describe farming or produce, I'm not so
convinced it'd be easy to enforce.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web