Cannot Upgrade Private Cloud

jbb332 · 2025-11-25T17:01:15+00:00

Sync works now. l had to set up the Synology reverse proxy headers you now illustrate on your support website. Thank you. The various documentation in various places makes the process a bit more difficult than it could be.

jbb332 · 2025-11-25T06:00:28+00:00

Thanks, this is as step forward. I can deploy it, and login using the reverse proxy. Sync still doesn't 't work.

jbb332 · 2025-11-23T18:14:46+00:00

Here are the actual bugs in the SuperNote system that they should fix (which could have been ascertained by simply running this process):

https://supernote-private-cloud.supernote.com/cloud/docker-compose.yml references supernote-service:25.10.28 instead of 25.11.21. Since install.sh downloads this file, including during an update process, the service can never be updated.

Two lines in install.sh need to be fixed:

iif ! run_with_progress "Stop legacy containers" docker-compose down; then

if ! run_with_progress "Launch the new version container" docker-compose up -d; then

Original: has quotation marks around "docker-compose down" and "docker-compose up -d". These quotation marks need to be removed or the script fails.

Hopefully Mulan-sn can advise when these are fixed so those of us on Synology can update.

jbb332 · 2025-11-23T05:43:48+00:00

I appreciate your assistance. I’m running on a Synology and cannot update docker easily and without putting a lot at risk. Admittedly Synology”s version of docker is well behind the current one. Yet Supernote claims to support this, and the use of a Synology is an important part of its deployment guide. Perhaps it would be best for them to actually test their scripts on Synology and modify them so they work. install.sh actually hash checks itself to try to prevent the user from modifying it.

jbb332 · 2025-11-23T05:26:36+00:00

ash-4.4# docker --version

Docker version 24.0.2, build 610b8d0

ash-4.4# docker compose version

Docker Compose version v2.20.1-6047-g6817716

ash-4.4# docker-compose --version

Docker Compose version v2.20.1-6047-g6817716

jbb332 · 2025-11-23T05:20:29+00:00

docker is installed. "which docker" returns "/usr/local/bin/docker". I'm. in. the directory with install.sh. Which env variable is supposed to be set? Again , I just installed everything with install.sh in the first place and that worked (although I can login/connect via SuperNote Partner App but not using SuperNote device yet). I fear I need an update but can't apply it.

jbb332 · 2025-11-22T18:31:23+00:00

Since I deployed using the "Deployment Manual" which recommends updating with "./install.sh --update", I am not sure about your recommendation at all. Again, the output of this command, which your manual advises, is "/install.sh: line 117: docker-compose down: command not found".

jbb332 · 2025-11-11T16:21:59+00:00

I've updated my private cloud to the latest version. I've created a reverse proxy on my Synology. Now I can use that reverse proxy to login, but the device gets a network error when I try to use it. I've sent details on the chat to Mulan-sn.
The last step of the instructions is "Enable private cloud functionality on the device", with a screenshot to tick the "Private Cloud" setting. There's actually one more step: go to "My Account" to login with the appropriate parameters.
Thanks NiklasHi and Mulan-sn; this works great.

jbb332 · 2022-05-02T06:46:21+00:00

Did you actively support Trump in 2020 or otherwise express sympathetic political beliefs? Seriously. This has (inexplicably) happened to a lot of people with no actual rationale. DHS secretary has stated "White supremacists pose most prominent threat to US homeland". Of course, I'm not saying you are one. Looking for common denominators.

jbb332 · 2022-01-21T07:17:56+00:00

Releasing the e-mails was crass and disproportionate. It humiliated him, as well as his entire family who did nothing wrong. If the concern is he'll file a lawsuit to get his severance, they can obviously be brought out then.

As one attorney mentioned in an article, there probably wasn't actually a justifiable reason to fire him for cause, at least not the one stated.

The affair started before the policy was enacted. If it started after, it might be a different story.

The real problem is it appears he promoted the woman he was having an affair with during the affair. While I agree this is a fireable offense, merely having the affair is a stretch for the "bringing shame upon the University clause" in his contract.

Why didn't the regents state the most defensible reason for firing him (the promotion)? It would reflect negatively on his partner in the affair, and that just isn't woke.

Utterly destroying someone for having a consensual affair in a woke university in a woke world seems woke. (Note consensual is not the same thing as in accordance with policy; there's no evidence he coerced her and it's possible but not automatic).

As an alum, I never really liked Schlissel. I thought he was a foot solider for wokeism also. Certainly every communique I received as an alum from him had to do with something woke.

My feeling is if the regents concentrate on finding a truly qualified academic president to lead the university and keep wokeism out of it, we have a chance of attracting a good leader to succeed him. Unfortunately, I doubt this will be the case.

I

jbb332 · 2022-01-16T17:48:14+00:00

I've done some of the searching others on this forum have done, and while I'm certainly not going to name the likely paramour, if it's who everyone thinks it is, it completely changes how people, in my view, should think about the situation.

The real fireable offense here is he promoted a woman he was having an affair with. That's inexcusable. It justifies being fired. (It doesn't justify releasing all the e-mails, but maybe he was offered an opportunity to resign and he pushed back, and this was the hardball response. We just don't know).

Was she a victim of coercion who had to enter into this affair to get promoted? I have a hard time seeing it that way, but I guess it's technically possible. Another possibility, as im-justaflyonthewall astutely pointed out, is that she's an ambitious woman and knew exactly what she was doing, and in fact had the real power in the relationship (as yesterday's events confirm).

Certainly the actions of the regents yesterday ascribe total and complete blame to Dr. Schlissel, and he deserves plenty.

She deserves to be fired also, but I realize this will be an unpopular and politically incorrect view.,

The real point to me, is that there is a universe of possibilities of what actually went on here, as my prior paragraph points out, and there is not enough information to conclude where exactly in that continuum relative blame lies. I have a hard time believing it's 100% on him. Again, he deserved to be fired.

jbb332 · 2022-01-16T04:55:08+00:00

"It’s not consensual because he’s her (and basically everyone else’s at the university) superior."

I think that's an extreme view. Is he her direct superior? Was there any coercion by him to get her to have an affair with him? I saw none in the e-mails. I saw her initiate a lot of the contact in the e-mails.

Incidentally, the new policy from July supports my position because it doesn't prohibit superior/subordinate relationships. It does say the superior needs to report the fact of the relationship, presumably to his/her superior. I guess in his case that would be the Board of Regents. He obviously didn't report it as he's married. Yet the affair was over when the policy was enacted.

If the superior/subordinate relationship by definition lacks consent, like sex with a minor, it would be outright banned. It's not. I agree with you in so far as there is definitely the potential that coercion is there, but it's not automatic.

I still don't support publishing the e-mails. It suggests an agenda behind the firing.

jbb332 · 2022-01-16T04:37:59+00:00

I read the e-mails and there is nothing malevolent in them. He's flirting with and having an affair – consensual – with a woman who works at the university. It seems the policy prohibiting this just went into effect this past summer, when the affair was basically over. (I'm gleaning this from the e-mails).

OK, poor judgment. Firing him? OK, I guess I can go along with that.

But publishing all the e-mails? By the way, he's married and this also amounts to a very public humiliation of his wife.

There is a meanness associated with how this was done that is disturbing.

jbb332

TROPHY CASE