[atmosx]

I bought a SynologyNAS and I have regretted already 3-4 times. Apart from the software made available from the community, there is very little one can do with this thing.

Using LE to apply SSL to services? Complicated. Non standard paths, custom distro, everything hidden (you can’t figure out where to place the ssl cert of how to restart the service, etc). Of course you will figure it out if you spent 50 hours… but why?

Don’t get me started with the old rsync version, lack of midnight commander and/or other utils.

I should have gone with something that runs proper Linux or BSD.

[joshstrange]

Unless you know what you are walking into ahead of time I would not recommend Synology to someone who wants to host a bunch of stuff and also wants a NAS. I don’t touch any of the container/apps stuff on my Synology(s), they are simply file servers for my application server. For this purpose, I find Synology rock solid and I’ve been very happy with them.

That said, I’ll probably try out the UniFi NAS offerings in the near future. I believe Synology has semi-walked-back its draconian hard drive policy but I don’t trust them to not try that again later. And because I only use my Synology as a NAS I can switch to something else relatively easily, as long as I can mount it on my app server, I’m golden.

[PunchyHamster]

You wanted a server and complain NAS is not just a server.

[Gud]

More like, user wanted an open operating system but chose a proprietary one.

[atmosx]

NAS is the primary function. But yes, I want full linux server that I can decide what to install and which protocol to use to upload and/or download files.

[tetris11]

(Copied from an earlier comment of mine)

There are guides on how to mainline Synology NAS's to run up-to-date debian on them: https://forum.doozan.com/list.php

[tgpc]

please don't do this to your synology

leave it to serve files and iscsi. it's very good at it

if you leave it alone, no extra software, it will basically be completely stable. it's really impressive

[aetherspawn]

Second this, just use it for files, it’s great for it. 10+ years uptime if you leave it alone.

[reddalo]

I'm so happy I didn't buy a NAS, Synology or not. I think a proper computer running Linux gives me so much more flexibility.

[butvacuum]

that's still a NAS.

[alexalx666]

I bought Synology RS217 for $100 last year and it's the best tech purchase I made in years. The software it comes with is the best web interface I experienced in years. The simplicity, stability and attention to detail reminds me of old macs. I have macmini as application server and did not expect to use Synology for anything but file storage / replication. However it comes with a great torrent client that I use all the time now. We also use Synology Office instead of google docs now. It exceeded all my expectations and when it dies, I will immediately buy one of the new rack stations they offer.

[paffdragon]

You can run a container on Synology and install your custom services, tools there. At least that is what I do. For custom kernel modules you still need a Synology package for something like Wireguard.

If you have OPNSense, it has an ACME plugin with Synology action. I use that to automatically renew and push a cert to the NAS.

That said, since I like to tinker, Synology feels a bit restricted, indeed. Although there is some value in a stable core system (like these immutable distros from Fedora Atomic).

[Arrowmaster]

The extremely old kernel on Synology makes it hard or impossible to run some containers.

[tbyehl]

> Using LE to apply SSL to services? Complicated.

https://github.com/JessThrysoee/synology-letsencrypt

> there is very little one can do with this thing.

It has a VMM and Docker. Entware / opkg exist for it. There's very little that can't be done, but expecting to use an appliance that happens to be Linux-based as a generic Linux server is going to lead to challenges. Be it Synology, TrueNAS, or anything else.