unRAID "Phone Home" discussion


Recommended Posts

The "Phone Home" discussion has been moved to Feature Requests.

 

[iurl=https://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=51379.0]https://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=51379.0[/iurl]

 

If you wish to continue go there. This thread is specifically for rc4 discussion.

 

trurl, I am very disappointed with your approach to this. While some of the comments might have detracted somewhat from what my post was about, it was discussion - and constructive discussion too. There was a time when that was encouraged on this forum. That being said while moving the broader discussion was perhaps a move I (as a Mod of old) would have taken, you have also removed my security/data question.

 

Therefore I am re-posting. The question below is direct and relates to a feature of RC4. The question is NOT a Feature Request. As this question relates to an exisiting feature I feel it is very much on point and as such should be allowed to remain in this forum.

 

I have had some further thought on this. I did some quick research on the topic and have found limited information.

 

So therefore, a direct question:

 

@Limetech @eschultz @jonp

 

Can you please describe the data that is captured and transmitted in your call-home (and any other communication between my servers - both ways - and LT servers), explain exactly why each peice of that data is required and if any part or all of it is stored?

 

Based on your answer to the above question I may have follow-ups.

 

I do not do this to be combative or generate more broader discussion. Please respect what is clearly a valid question about an exisiting feature and allow it to remain in the most appropriate forum.

I did not REmove anything. It is still in that other thread. Nevertheless I will leave the repeat here as long as it doesn't blow up into another several pages in this thread that is supposed to be about things that are specific to this particular release.

 

Another user complained that I had put it in Feature Requests. I agree that it is a poor fit for there. Where do you think the discussion belongs? It does not belong in this thread.

 

Semantics. The question was on point, the generated discussion perhaps bloated a thread out to a point where it could cease to be useful. Which is not in the best interests of the product, I understand.

 

Let's take the remainder of your post offline.

Link to comment

The "Phone Home" discussion has been moved to Feature Requests.

 

[iurl=https://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=51379.0]https://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=51379.0[/iurl]

 

If you wish to continue go there. This thread is specifically for rc4 discussion.

 

trurl, I am very disappointed with your approach to this. While some of the comments might have detracted somewhat from what my post was about, it was discussion - and constructive discussion too. There was a time when that was encouraged on this forum. That being said while moving the broader discussion was perhaps a move I (as a Mod of old) would have taken, you have also removed my security/data question.

 

Therefore I am re-posting. The question below is direct and relates to a feature of RC4. The question is NOT a Feature Request. As this question relates to an exisiting feature I feel it is very much on point and as such should be allowed to remain in this forum.

 

I have had some further thought on this. I did some quick research on the topic and have found limited information.

 

So therefore, a direct question:

 

@Limetech @eschultz @jonp

 

Can you please describe the data that is captured and transmitted in your call-home (and any other communication between my servers - both ways - and LT servers), explain exactly why each peice of that data is required and if any part or all of it is stored?

 

Based on your answer to the above question I may have follow-ups.

 

I do not do this to be combative or generate more broader discussion. Please respect what is clearly a valid question about an exisiting feature and allow it to remain in the most appropriate forum.

I did not REmove anything. It is still in that other thread. Nevertheless I will leave the repeat here as long as it doesn't blow up into another several pages in this thread that is supposed to be about things that are specific to this particular release.

 

Another user complained that I had put it in Feature Requests. I agree that it is a poor fit for there. Where do you think the discussion belongs? It does not belong in this thread.

 

Moving the discussion like you did to feature requests makes it seem like your trying to sweep the discussion under the rug.

 

Why can't you start a new thread under announcements? I would love to hear what LT has to say, and it looks to me like the discussion has gotten a lot of contribution from top members here with nothing from LT.

 

I understand you don't want the discussion in the release thread, but technically that's where it really should be since we were told the phone home/kill switch were in place for beta only to prevent data loss. Now that we're on a RC we all expect the phone home/kill switch to be gone, and want to know why it's not.

Link to comment

Moving the discussion like you did to feature requests makes it seem like your trying to sweep the discussion under the rug.

 

Why can't you start a new thread under announcements? I would love to hear what LT has to say, and it looks to me like the discussion has gotten a lot of contribution from top members here with nothing from LT.

 

I understand you don't want the discussion in the release thread, but technically that's where it really should be since we were told the phone home/kill switch were in place for beta only to prevent data loss. Now that we're on a RC we all expect the phone home/kill switch to be gone, and want to know why it's not.

Just figuring it out as I go on the mod stuff. Not sure I could have split it into a new topic in Announcements. I do know that nobody except the Admins can start a new thread in that subforum. I am still open to suggestions as to where this belongs.

 

I am certainly not trying to sweep anything under the rug. I even share some of the concerns though I am not especially worried about Limetech screwing their existing customers. My interest in the product is as a user. If the product goes away my main regret will be losing the community. I will probably move on to something else in a few years anyway and this will all just be nostalgia. Things change pretty quickly.

 

I moved the discussion because other users had complained. Obviously you can't please everyone, but I think the complaints were justified so I chose to please those other users.

 

Link to comment

I'm just getting very concerned that something that was never a part of the unraid licensing or feature set has been added so quickly and with almost no official comment from LT, when the community is so vocal about our concerns.

 

It really worries me that a company that has always been so user focussed and still manages to add in kernel modules, etc. on request, has completely shutdown and not entered into the discussion.

 

All this is going to do is continue to wear away the trust that has been solidly built over the years.

 

Check your history. This was not quick and was not without official comment. LT is likely not commenting because they already have (and has been quoted in this thread) and it apparently was not enough; also it is clear some people will simply never agree with this precaution in a Betas or RCs and have convinced themselves it is a "feature" to be debated then they know darn well it is removed when final.

 

For those people the answer is simple: don't run Betas or RC's

 

For people who are worried this is a harbinger of inclusion into a Final Release the answer is simple: enjoy the ride on your slippery slope.

 

For people who are worried about what is transmitted the answer is simple: don't run Betas or RC ... or do some forum searching because I'm like 99% sure LT already mentioned that it is a license and version check. They don't need anything else, and have not done anything else in their history IMO, to make me think they are collecting any more info. Even their diagnostics snap shot intentionally tries to avoid pulling personal info.

 

Finally, if you don't trust them now at this point, why would you trust them to tell you if they are doing something Bad. You should verify and do some packet sniffing to prove to yourself what is or is not being sent over your network.

Link to comment

Is anyone from LT looking at these forums? I find it hard to believe they aren't. Can we please get an official answer in this thread?

 

The total silence from LT is what makes me most uneasy about these "features".

 

a few simple questions, what exactly is being sent in each boot up phone home?

 

When is the phone home / kill switch going to finally be removed? The RC should be stable enough that it's no longer needed to protect data.

 

I also find it hard to believe it's needed to prevent piracy, I don't know if LT has any kind of real numbers on how many unlicensed servers are running but It seems to me like this kind of policy does nothing to prevent it anyway.

Link to comment

When is the phone home / kill switch going to finally be removed? The RC should be stable enough that it's no longer needed to protect data.

 

Asked and answered, it is removed when they issue a final release.

 

I also find it hard to believe it's needed to prevent piracy, I don't know if LT has any kind of real numbers on how many unlicensed servers are running but It seems to me like this kind of policy does nothing to prevent it anyway.

It isn't. That is what the registered USB is for. So ... a moot discussion

Link to comment

I am not sure it is as clear cut as beta/RC. The last time this was asked LT "reserved the right" to keep it in the live product. (Too busy to find the quote).

This is what you were referring to:

Quote

 

    Will this requirement for Internet still be present in 'Final'?  If so, I will, regrettably, have to remain on v6.1.9 or investigate alternative storage solutions.

 

As of today I can say "no", but we have to reserve the right to change things it it makes business sense.  But you can be assured of this: we will never screw over our existing customers.

 

This is what has me nervous, if it's not really about preventing piracy then how would it ever make business sense?

 

sadly this makes not as simple as "asked and answered"

 

I think it great that some people are okay with this, and we can have a civil discussion here about it, but again I'd really just like an official answer from LT themselves.

Link to comment

Just figuring it out as I go on the mod stuff. Not sure I could have split it into a new topic in Announcements. I do know that nobody except the Admins can start a new thread in that subforum. I am still open to suggestions as to where this belongs.

 

I am certainly not trying to sweep anything under the rug. I even share some of the concerns though I am not especially worried about Limetech screwing their existing customers. My interest in the product is as a user. If the product goes away my main regret will be losing the community. I will probably move on to something else in a few years anyway and this will all just be nostalgia. Things change pretty quickly.

 

I moved the discussion because other users had complained. Obviously you can't please everyone, but I think the complaints were justified so I chose to please those other users.

I received probably more complaints about moving the thread than I received about the OT posts. While I cannot start a thread in the Announcements subforum, the forum software did allow me to move the whole thread there, so that is what I have done at the suggestion of mostlydave.

 

I don't really agree it belongs in Announcements either, but it is not a Feature Request. It is also not a Defect Report as defined by the rules of that subforum, though some may consider it Broken As Designed.

 

There isn't a Complaints subforum, and if there were it would probably only put the mods into a grey area controlling possibly trollish behavior. And would spoil the mostly good relations we have on this forum.

 

There is a Complaints sticky in this subforum though if anyone wants to consult it.

 

The original FOIA request from danioj I have moved back to that other thread since we agreed to keep the question there.

 

This is probably the last I will say about this but I will continue to move the OT discussion from the RC4 thread. If anyone else has any further complaints about this for the mods maybe another mod will pay attention to it.

Link to comment

It is not clear at all where it should be discussed because there is no 100% correct place however the RC threads are supposed to be a one-pile-file for everything relating to testing RC which this clearly is.

 

However the fundamental problem is lots of people are concerned over this and the only people that know the answers, well aren't answering.

 

Like it or not this will not go away until some actual non speculative information is released. The simple act of trying to curtail this discussion will have the exact opposite effect so lets just endeavour to keep it civil until some details are released.

Link to comment

The issue I have is I must run the betas/RC to support the hardware I want to use.  I want to run a NVMe SSD cache, so I have enough SATA ports available for my plans.  That means I can't run 6.1.9.

 

So, saying "don't run RC" doesn't help me.

 

Well, basically I've turned off my UnRAID box, and I'm using a Windows 10 machine with a Drobo plugged in to it.  I might move back to UnRAID.  Maybe.

Link to comment

When is the phone home / kill switch going to finally be removed? The RC should be stable enough that it's no longer needed to protect data.

 

Asked and answered, it is removed when they issue a final release.

 

 

At what point is an RC not an RC?! This is madness and have never seen anything like that in the 'real-world'. But please, LT - answer the question(s) posed here.

 

  • What data are you collecting? (A file by file breakdown will do to begin with)
  • Why do you need to collect it (reasonably?)
  • Can I opt out yet remain an active part of shaping the future of unRAID (i.e. part of the BETA program without allowing a kill-switch on my box?)

 

DRM preventing my box from booting (BETA OR NOT) is UNACCEPTABLE. The fact that there has been no word from LT on this yet is UNACCEPTABLE. Guys, sort out your PR - please! It's a running joke!!

 

If Apple, Google, Microsoft or Oracle pulled a similar stunt it would be front page news. I implore you to at the very least respond to your paying customers ASAP. This is shady stuff, suited more to EA than LT. Please sort it out. Like, yesterday.

Link to comment

I am not sure it is as clear cut as beta/RC. The last time this was asked LT "reserved the right" to keep it in the live product. (Too busy to find the quote).

This is what you were referring to:

Quote

 

    Will this requirement for Internet still be present in 'Final'?  If so, I will, regrettably, have to remain on v6.1.9 or investigate alternative storage solutions.

 

As of today I can say "no", but we have to reserve the right to change things it it makes business sense.  But you can be assured of this: we will never screw over our existing customers.

 

This is what has me nervous, if it's not really about preventing piracy then how would it ever make business sense?

 

sadly this makes not as simple as "asked and answered"

 

I think it great that some people are okay with this, and we can have a civil discussion here about it, but again I'd really just like an official answer from LT themselves.

 

But see it is asked and answered and there is no clarifying info to be had until such time as they decide it makes business sense and then tell us about it.

 

They have stated what their reasons and intentions. As is their right, they also  stated that they may change their mind if it makes business sense. If they do, and we don't like it, we vote with our dollars. If enough votes are cast "NAY" such that it makes business sense to change back I am pretty sure they will do what is in their business interests.

 

As to it not being about piracy and it thus not making sense ... it makes sense because they have stated it is about ensuring betas and rc's that might have issues can be shut down to force users to a known good version.

 

Could this be some secret test of the code and user willingness to tolerate such behavior? Perhaps. But until their actions tell me otherwise I'm inclined to believe their stated reasons and intent .

 

Sure the check only occurs during reboot but what is the alternative? An recurring check while the server is running that might take it down mid operation? That will ensure an even quicker shut down of a buggy release but I can't even imagine what the uproad about that would look like. Can you?

 

They "reserve the right" statement didn't even need to be said because of course they have that right, they just decided to make it clear that when they say they have no intention of doing it right now, they have the right to change their minds.

 

 

Link to comment

The way I see it, no one is forcing you to participate in the beta program. Release candidates are part of a beta program, if you don't like specific features of the beta, don't use it, simple, end of story. Ranting at LT publicly in the forms to address a feature you have issue with isn't likely to get their attention.

Link to comment

When is the phone home / kill switch going to finally be removed? The RC should be stable enough that it's no longer needed to protect data.

 

Asked and answered, it is removed when they issue a final release.

 

 

...

 

DRM preventing my box from booting (BETA OR NOT) is UNACCEPTABLE. The fact that there has been no word from LT on this yet is UNACCEPTABLE. Guys, sort out your PR - please! It's a running joke!!

 

...

 

If it truly is a "kill-switch" meant to protect data from a potential fatal bug, couldn't it be handled a little differently?  Instead of stopping it from booting, couldn't it boot into a "degraded" mode.  As in, the array doesn't auto-start on boot.  And in order to start the array, a dialog could be prompted warning the user of the potential danger, then they would make the decision to start the array.

Link to comment

The issue I have is I must run the betas/RC to support the hardware I want to use.  I want to run a NVMe SSD cache, so I have enough SATA ports available for my plans.  That means I can't run 6.1.9.

 

So, saying "don't run RC" doesn't help me.

 

Well, basically I've turned off my UnRAID box, and I'm using a Windows 10 machine with a Drobo plugged in to it.  I might move back to UnRAID.  Maybe.

 

Sure it helps you. You shouldn't be trying to run hardware that isn't supported on a final release unless you are willing to accept the well stated consequences and limitations of running Beta/RC. It is really that simple. You WANT to run that hardware and to support that WANT LT has started the process to officially support it. That process isn't complete until they officially release it.

 

Until that time you shouldn't be using it in a production system that can't handle being down. Had you not moved on to hardware that exceeded the support of the last official release of unraid you wold not have any problems.

Link to comment

At what point is an RC not an RC?! This is madness and have never seen anything like that in the 'real-world'. But please, LT - answer the question(s) posed here.

 

When it is published as a final relase. Is that some how different in your experience?

 

What data are you collecting? (A file by file breakdown will do to begin with)

A fair question. One Im' pretty sure has been answered long ago but I don't have the time or patience to search for it so yeah, it would be nice for LT to state it again

 

Why do you need to collect it (reasonably?)

This has been answered. Not liking or believing the answer will not change the answer nor I suspect will a restatement of the answer change anyone's opinion

 

Can I opt out yet remain an active part of shaping the future of unRAID (i.e. part of the BETA program without allowing a kill-switch on my box?)

Let's take a wild guess at this shall we  ... .

 

DRM preventing my box from booting (BETA OR NOT) is UNACCEPTABLE. The fact that there has been no word from LT on this yet is UNACCEPTABLE. Guys, sort out your PR - please! It's a running joke!!

I don't like DRM either. Simple solution, don't run Beta or RC releases

 

If Apple, Google, Microsoft or Oracle pulled a similar stunt it would be front page news. I implore you to at the very least respond to your paying customers ASAP. This is shady stuff, suited more to EA than LT. Please sort it out. Like, yesterday.

Apple, Google, Microsoft or Oracle do pull similar stunts ALL THE TIME. And in some cases it ends up on the front page, in other cases it doesn't. You know when it doesn't hit the front page? When they do it on their pre-release channels because everyone knows they don't get to run that forever. Stop creating a false equivalency between LT's policies in the Beta/RC channel vs. the final release channel. It is not shady. It was announced a long time ago. It is stated in every Beta/RC release note, and they have stated they will not screw over their existing paying customers if they decide to institute such a policy in the final release channel. You choosing not to hear or believe that cannot be changed with another restatement.

Link to comment

At what point is an RC not an RC?! This is madness and have never seen anything like that in the 'real-world'. But please, LT - answer the question(s) posed here.

 

When it is published as a final relase. Is that some how different in your experience?

 

What data are you collecting? (A file by file breakdown will do to begin with)

A fair question. One Im' pretty sure has been answered long ago but I don't have the time or patience to search for it so yeah, it would be nice for LT to state it again

 

Why do you need to collect it (reasonably?)

This has been answered. Not liking or believing the answer will not change the answer nor I suspect will a restatement of the answer change anyone's opinion

 

Can I opt out yet remain an active part of shaping the future of unRAID (i.e. part of the BETA program without allowing a kill-switch on my box?)

Let's take a wild guess at this shall we  ... .

 

DRM preventing my box from booting (BETA OR NOT) is UNACCEPTABLE. The fact that there has been no word from LT on this yet is UNACCEPTABLE. Guys, sort out your PR - please! It's a running joke!!

I don't like DRM either. Simple solution, don't run Beta or RC releases

 

If Apple, Google, Microsoft or Oracle pulled a similar stunt it would be front page news. I implore you to at the very least respond to your paying customers ASAP. This is shady stuff, suited more to EA than LT. Please sort it out. Like, yesterday.

Apple, Google, Microsoft or Oracle do pull similar stunts ALL THE TIME. And in some cases it ends up on the front page, in other cases it doesn't. You know when it doesn't hit the front page? When they do it on their pre-release channels because everyone knows they don't get to run that forever. Stop creating a false equivalency between LT's policies in the Beta/RC channel vs. the final release channel. It is not shady. It was announced a long time ago. It is stated in every Beta/RC release note, and they have stated they will not screw over their existing paying customers if they decide to institute such a policy in the final release channel. You choosing not to hear or believe that cannot be changed with another restatement.

 

OK. We clearly differ in opinions. But I no longer run unRAID anymore for anything I care about due to ethical differences in what I find acceptable.

 

Who's to say that in future, this kill-switch won't be used to enforce a blanket subscription policy which rendered all existing licenses (for v4, 5, 6) invalid. Just a thought.

Link to comment

If it truly is a "kill-switch" meant to protect data from a potential fatal bug, couldn't it be handled a little differently?  Instead of stopping it from booting, couldn't it boot into a "degraded" mode.  As in, the array doesn't auto-start on boot.  And in order to start the array, a dialog could be prompted warning the user of the potential danger, then they would make the decision to start the array.

This idea is lacking some detail. Does it try to phone home and if that fails or detects you are running a bad version it makes you start manually? Or does it not phone home and so all beta/RC must be started manually. I think a lot of people are objecting to phone home on principle, which just leaves you with a mostly ignored warning about starting it.

 

Who's to say that in future, this kill-switch won't be used to enforce a blanket subscription policy which rendered all existing licenses (for v4, 5, 6) invalid. Just a thought.

I've never heard any reports that any version before 6.2 phones home so it seems like everyone would have to voluntarily download a new version of those old releases to retroactively make that happen.
Link to comment

If it truly is a "kill-switch" meant to protect data from a potential fatal bug, couldn't it be handled a little differently?  Instead of stopping it from booting, couldn't it boot into a "degraded" mode.  As in, the array doesn't auto-start on boot.  And in order to start the array, a dialog could be prompted warning the user of the potential danger, then they would make the decision to start the array.

This idea is lacking some detail. Does it try to phone home and if that fails or detects you are running a bad version it makes you start manually? Or does it not phone home and so all beta/RC must be started manually. I think a lot of people are objecting to phone home on principle, which just leaves you with a mostly ignored warning about starting it.

 

Who's to say that in future, this kill-switch won't be used to enforce a blanket subscription policy which rendered all existing licenses (for v4, 5, 6) invalid. Just a thought.

I've never heard any reports that any version before 6.2 phones home so it seems like everyone would have to voluntarily download a new version of those old releases to retroactively make that happen.

 

From my experience with the beta if you have no internet connection you're not starting the array. That begs the question of why it isn't a warning with a manual array start instead? what if download a beta version with a problem and install but then do not reboot for several months?

Link to comment
Who's to say that in future, this kill-switch won't be used to enforce a blanket subscription policy which rendered all existing licenses (for v4, 5, 6) invalid. Just a thought.

 

Is there anything LT can say that will make your above statement no longer possible?

 

Is there a world where, if LT had not yet implemented this functionality in the Beta/RC, your above statement is not still possible?

 

I mean, who's to say they won't [insert literally any reasonable or unreasonable thing here].

 

You seem to want / need iron clad immutable declarations where none are either possible or realistic.

Link to comment

what if download a beta version with a problem and install but then do not reboot for several months?

The way things currently work, there is and never has been an install, just an unpack into RAM on bootup. So if you download but don't reboot you aren't running the downloaded version.
Link to comment

Who's to say that in future, this kill-switch won't be used to enforce a blanket subscription policy which rendered all existing licenses (for v4, 5, 6) invalid. Just a thought.

You seem to want / need iron clad immutable declarations where none are either possible or realistic.

 

You have a point but so, I think, do I.

Link to comment

The way I see it, no one is forcing you to participate in the beta program. Release candidates are part of a beta program, if you don't like specific features of the beta, don't use it, simple, end of story. Ranting at LT publicly in the forms to address a feature you have issue with isn't likely to get their attention.

 

I think much has been said to express the overall sentiment regarding remote 'activation'

 

But if I may, the position that 'no one is forcing you to participate' isn't strictly true.  IF it's your intention to continue using UnRAID and its plug-ins / add-ons, AND to update your system at all, going forward, (newer/larger HDs, newer M/B, more RAM, newer plug-ins, etc.) you're really NOT free to remain stagnant.  Like it or not, you WILL be coerced into upgrading.  I currently run 5.06, and have already ran into situations where it's been evident that few forms of support exist outside of tribal knowledge, existing only thru the kindess of fellow users.  Ask a question, and you're just as likely to be dismissed in the forums with 'Upgrade and then we'll talk.  You're running outdated software.'  Or my favorite- the position that, 'Yes, it's a known problem, but it isn't going to be fixed- because we're doing newer things'

 

So it isn't entirely proper to dismiss someone with a position that 'nobody's forcing you' - because you DO feel pressured to keep somewhat up-to-date IF you intend to remain a long-term user.

 

My comments here are entirely referencing forum responses, and are not intended as a commentary on LT's support.  At the moment, I remain concerned about the activation feature, but I still trust LT will do-right by his customers.  I can see how the function would worry someone, however, and it's in their best interest to ensure the issue isn't given some sort of passive approval by allowing dissenting voices to fade.  ala 'the price of liberty is eternal vigilance'

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.