The kernel parameterizing of allow-discards could be an Archism: apparently in Arch, you notify GRUB of an encrypted root with (e.g.) ”cryptdevice=/dev/mapper/root:root:allow-discards”. This being picked up by Ubuntu users might be due to Arch’s wiki being referred to as ”Best reference” by Ubuntu wiki’s EncryptedFilesystems.

This answer is starting to look good. I also found allow_discards in dm-crypt’s current documentation; everything seems to imply it’s not a kernel parameter but an option for the dm-crypt device-mapper target. I’m still trying to find out if those can be passed on the linux command line. That would explain the instructions parroted all over, otherwise it is probably just misinformation.

As I said, net’s full of instructions without explanations. I’m after the explanations, not the procedure.

So, neither of the options is needed if the filesystem isn’t encypted? Why two options if all they do is enable one command to work?

A lot of SSD-related instructions online currently say you should add allow-discards and root_trim=yes to your GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX. I have yet to find one that says why you should do that, i.e. what exactly (if anything!) do those parameters do. Where is the documentation on this and what does it say about those two parameters’ purpose?

According to Cryptsetup 1.4.0 Release Notes,

Since kernel 3.1, dm-crypt devices optionally (not by default) support block discards (TRIM) commands. If you want to enable this operation, you have to enable it manually on every activation using –allow-discards

cryptsetup luksOpen --allow-discards /dev/sdb test_disk 

but is it the same when passed to the kernel (via GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX)?

Edit: Kernel.org’s list of kernel parameters doesn’t (currently, Jan 2013, at least) have either of these options.

Note: This is not to brag or to belittle your experience, it probably depends very much on the individual.

I went cold turkey from 150 mg (after years of use) and honestly, even a mild flu would have been worse. The ringing and the zaps were just a minor (and expected) annoyance, and a small dose of pain killer took care of the headache. The only surprise was completely losing my patience for a couple of weeks, I was raging and bashing things (not people, thankfully) for being a trivial hindrance.

In the process of entertaining myself with random Imgur images, I constantly come across two of the same ones: a ”Facebook Monopoly” image (for instance, jkuiL) and a ”Three smartphones” one (e.g. 03iyz). Is this part of some advertising partnership of yours or just some weird form of abuse (posted by malware perhaps)? I’ve been collecting lists of URLs of those images, currently the one for ”Facebook Monopoly” has 215 unique addresses and the one for ”Three smartphones” has 135. I can share those lists with you if they’re of any use; I’d post them here already but am worried it might trigger spam detectors.

From a similar question on ServerFault (and particularly one response there), one possible explanation for the disparity is that there are processes hanging on to files they’ve accessed on /tmp that have since been deleted.

# lsof | grep deleted 

will list such files along with the processes still attached to them.

Markkinointisähköpostiviestienne tilauksen peruminen viestin lopussa olevalla ”Poista tilaus tästä” -linkillä ei toimi. Linkistä avautuva sivu näyttää vain virheilmoitusta (kuva liitteenä).

At the end of 30-day trial, you apparently charge for premium without any kind of forewarning.

This won’t do.

I never would have paid the premium for an app I have only tried once, had I known, and I haven’t given you my consent to charge me for the premium. If you’ve announced this charge falling down at the end of the trial, you clearly haven’t done so prominently enough, as I never would have signed up even for the trial with such shitty conditions.

I want my money back.

Also, I’m curious as to where and how you got my credit card details to charge me, as I don’t recall giving them to Spotify to begin with (though my memory may fail me here due to this fuckery-up of yours making me so angry).

After you’ve redeemed the charge (9,99 €, date 12/09/13, further data available from my bank record if needed) I want you to remove my credit card details from your records and with it my entire Spotify account. I want nothing to do with you from hereon.

Unless you refuse, in which case you’ve made what could’ve been just a dissatisfied potential customer into an enemy.