Re: Saving Sent Messages with Thunderbird
On 29/12/17 05:37, Dan Purgert wrote: > I believe + works for most any menubar > > - (F)ile > - (V)iew > - (E)dit > - (H)elp > - etc... That's been true for a long time. Generally the significant letter is underlined. It certainly worked on MS Works 2.0 (for DOS). > If the window / program has one of those upper-left menus (with the > program icon) for window-managent (Move, resize, etc), + > usually opens that one. That worked in Windows 3, which was the first (and almost last) version I used (on a regular basis on my own machine). It's handy when you've lost the menu bar off the top of the screen or whatever - alt-space to bring up that menu, then you can move the window around or resize it with keys instead of the mouse. > Though it's been a long time, so I could be mistaken -- I believe if you > press and hold (or sometimes hold for a few seconds then release) it'll > highlight or underline the relevant character to open that menu (might > even give you a selection 'cursor' so you can use the arrow keys to > navigate). That I didn't know - I hadn't noticed that some apps don't show the underlines all the time. Thanks :-) Richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Experiences with BTRFS -- is it mature enough for enterprise use?
On 12/30/17 01:26, Matthew Crews wrote: >> Original Message >> Subject: Re: Experiences with BTRFS -- is it mature enough for enterprise >> use? >> Local Time: December 29, 2017 4:48 PM >> UTC Time: December 29, 2017 11:48 PM >> From: j...@jvales.net > >> You still can go md-raid + btrfs, if you want some btrfs features. > > If you're using Raid1 or Raid10, md-raid + btrfs is probably worse than > native btrfs Raid1 + Raid10. > The problem with btrfs-raid10 (with 6 disks): it self-destructed itself on our soon to be production server twice in december. So no way btrfs-raid is going to see production on our machines anytime soon. It seems to work without issues on md-raid6 + luks + btrfs so far... So hopefully we will at least have snaphots <3 Its just a file/backup-server and nothing that would need best disk performance - if we wanted that, we would have gone for ssd's. :) br, Jan Vales -- I only read plaintext emails. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Experiences with BTRFS -- is it mature enough for enterprise use?
> Original Message >Subject: Re: Experiences with BTRFS -- is it mature enough for enterprise use? >Local Time: December 29, 2017 4:48 PM >UTC Time: December 29, 2017 11:48 PM >From: j...@jvales.net > You still can go md-raid + btrfs, if you want some btrfs features. If you're using Raid1 or Raid10, md-raid + btrfs is probably worse than native btrfs Raid1 + Raid10.
Re: [Solved] KDE-Plasma Hibernation
Le 29/12/2017 à 16:17, bw a écrit : On Fri, 29 Dec 2017, rudu wrote: running a debian/buster kde-plasma environment for maybe a year already, but I can't find a way to make the Kickoff>Leave menu to show any choice other than system> quit or restart (apart from the usual session options). Is powerdevil installed? Thank you BW, you got it right !! Installing this missing packet and rebooting the machine did it. No further tweaking needed. I owe you a beer ... virtual as it may be ... Have a nice new year's eve. Rudu
Re: Experiences with BTRFS -- is it mature enough for enterprise use?
On 12/29/17 00:55, Andy Smith wrote: > The killer feature of ZFS is its checksumming of all data and > metadata to protect against bitrot and other forms of data > corruption. The only other filesystem offering this on Linux is > btrfs, hence the many mentions of ZFS in this thread. Putting the > filesystem under MD RAID (or hardware RAID) and scrubbing it will > detect corruption but cannot fix it. > md-raid6 can fix most few-byte issues online. # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb1 bs=1 count=1 seek=1234 md-raid6 scrub will fix that byte. Remember to always flush disc caches when testing! But unlike btrfs-raid10, md-raid6 cannot recover a whole disk or partition getting fully zero-dd'd - with or without a reboot. I didnt actually test how much of a disk must be zeroed or random'ed before md-raid6 scrub starts to fail. A few calls to the above dd with diffrent seek= and then scrubbing will fix the corrupted bytes every time. A full zero-dd will not. -> drive will be "failed" and you need to re-add it. Which was the reason why we initially gave btrfs-raid10 a try... ... it would be a really cool FS, if it was as stable as it is on my laptop (and I really dislike btrfs-raid definitions) You still can go md-raid + btrfs, if you want some btrfs features. Snapshots (and send/receive) are what I really love on my laptop and could not live without anymore. (fulldisk encryption may be mandatory, as btrfs at least some time ago, had the tendency to brick itself, if it sees its uuid on multiple disks at the same time (md-raid1)) br, Jan Vales -- I only read plaintext emails. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Le 29/12/2017 à 23:46, Dan Norton a écrit : On 12/29/2017 08:52 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: The details for other detected OSes are provided by os-prober. The entry title for the main OS is derived from the GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR variable in /etc/default/grub. You can tweak it to fit your needs. If lsb-release is installed, changing -i to -d will provide more details such as the Debian version and codename. Very helpful. Actually the name is "lsb_release". lsb-release is the name of the Debian package providing the lsb_release command. I need to study the shell - not sure about that GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR statement. Will definitely change the -i to -d. Why isn't -ds needed? What do you mean ? -s is already present in the line. Note that you can define your own static text instead of the shell command.
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
On 12/29/2017 08:52 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 21/12/2017 à 20:07, Dan Norton a écrit : Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: A615A904-0620-459F-BF44-5E53E54FDF24 Device Start End Sectors Size Type /dev/sda1 2048 411647 409600 200M BIOS boot (...) Is there a problem here? Yes. /dev/sda1 has the type "BIOS boot" but is actually used as an EFI system partition, according to df and /etc/fstab. So it should have the type "EFI system". Ah. Getting this right is a problem for me, but when the installer does all the partitioning, the right choices seem to be made. Before moving on to multiboot with LVM and GPT, I'd like to change the menu entries to something more consistent. The last install is referred to as "Debian GNU/Linux" but that's ambiguous. Which Debian GNU/Linux? If each entry was in the form "Debian GNU/Linux 9 (stretch) (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" that would really be explicit. Also I want some more time to mull over which to boot. The details for other detected OSes are provided by os-prober. The entry title for the main OS is derived from the GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR variable in /etc/default/grub. You can tweak it to fit your needs. If lsb-release is installed, changing -i to -d will provide more details such as the Debian version and codename. Very helpful. Actually the name is "lsb_release". I need to study the shell - not sure about that GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR statement. Will definitely change the -i to -d. Why isn't -ds needed?
Re: GRUB and boot partition
On 2017-12-29 06:46 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 29/12/2017 à 11:02, deloptes a écrit : microsoft gaofei wrote: I'm thinking about a question ,how my hard disk admits so much data ? If /boot partition is encrypted , then how does my hard disk admit GRUB ? sudo fdisk /dev/sda , and press o to create a DOS partition table . This software starts on sector 2048 by default . So how does the 2048 sectors admit GRUB to achieve encrypted /boot ? FWIW, here is what I replied to the OP's private mail : GRUB core image embeds all the required modules to read /boot/grub, including crypto modules when /boot/grub is encrypted. 2048 512-byte sectors is 1 MiB. GRUB BIOS core image does not need so much space. GRUB BIOS was developed at a time when partition alignment was based on "cylinders", so the first partition usually started at sector 63. GRUB BIOS core image was initially designed to fit in that 30 KiB space. It has grown a bit over time and is sometimes slightly bigger than 30 KiB, but 1 MiB is still plenty of space. A copy of GRUB BIOS core image is kept in /boot/grub/i386-pc/core.img, so you can see its size. you don't encrypt boot Why not ? There's a lot of (not so) old information about /boot. I still have one machine with a separate /boot partition because when I first set it up, it was still required when using an mdadm RAID array.
Re: Requesting for help
On 29-12-2017 19:18, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > On 29-12-2017 18:58, eamanu15 . wrote: >> Sorry if this is not the correct mailing list, but maybe you can help >> me. >> >> I have a Lenovo laptop with Windows10 native and UEFI. I read (really >> a friend) on various forums and tell that Debian installation is >> difficult on systems with UEFI. That is correct? > No. > You'll probably have to disable Secure Boot, but otherwise the installation should not be diferent from BIOS systems. The installer will detect the use of UEFI and select the correct version of grub. -- "Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br
Re: Requesting for help
On 29-12-2017 18:58, eamanu15 . wrote: > Sorry if this is not the correct mailing list, but maybe you can help > me. > > I have a Lenovo laptop with Windows10 native and UEFI. I read (really > a friend) on various forums and tell that Debian installation is > difficult on systems with UEFI. That is correct? No. -- BOFH excuse #436: Daemon escaped from pentagram Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br
Requesting for help
Hello everybody, Sorry if this is not the correct mailing list, but maybe you can help me. I have a Lenovo laptop with Windows10 native and UEFI. I read (really a friend) on various forums and tell that Debian installation is difficult on systems with UEFI. That is correct? Thanks! Regards! Emmanuel -- Arias Emmanuel https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmanuel-arias-437a6a8a http://eamanu.com
Re: BIND DNS problem after upgrading from Wheezy to Squeeze
Le 29/12/2017 à 18:27, Andrew W a écrit : On 27/12/2017 13:18, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: Current BIND9 defaults to doing DNSSEC verification. DNSSEC needs large packets. You might have an issue with UDP fragments being dropped at your firewall/NAT Gateway? Thanks for this tip. Looking into it I discovered TCP seems to be recommened for DNSSEC so Ive enabled TCP port 53 and so far not had a problem! AFAIK TCP is just a fall-back transport to work around UDP packet size issues. Compared to UDP, TCP transport for DNS wastes system and network resources.
Re: BIND DNS problem after upgrading from Wheezy to Squeeze
On 27/12/2017 13:18, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: Current BIND9 defaults to doing DNSSEC verification. DNSSEC needs large packets. You might have an issue with UDP fragments being dropped at your firewall/NAT Gateway? Thanks for this tip. Looking into it I discovered TCP seems to be recommened for DNSSEC so Ive enabled TCP port 53 and so far not had a problem!
Re: unison compatibility in stretch
On Friday, 29 Dec 2017 at 11:27, Tony van der Hoff wrote: [...] > Syncthing appears to be an extremely powerful file synchronization tool, [...] > I've decided to give up on Syncthing, and revert to Unison, which means > upgrading my server, but hey, what are holidays for? Thanks for the update. Your experience may be what I ran into when I tried syncthing a long time ago; I cannot remember why I gave up on it but it may have had to do with a complex network setup at home... Let's hope that unison doesn't get out of sync (no pun intended) for you too soon again! -- Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50, org 9.1.5 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: installing ufraw on buster
On Friday, 29 Dec 2017 at 11:54, Brian wrote: > What is the error message? Does 'apt search ' find anything? How > about 'apt show ufraw'? Neither of those found anything. However, based on a suggestion from somebody else, doing 'apt-get clean' sorted things out. Thanks for your help, eric -- Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50, org 9.1.5 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: installing ufraw on buster
On Friday, 29 Dec 2017 at 06:30, john doe wrote: [...] > I had rongly assumed that you were trying to install buster packages > into stretch, so '-t buster' is clearly not needed. Sorry, should have made myself more clear. Yes, I'm already at buster. > Have you already tried?: > > $ apt-get clean && apt-get update && apt search ufraw This does the job! The only thing I had not done previously is apt-get clean but for some reason this has fixed things. I'm not sure I understand why, mind you. Now time to work on my photos! :-) Thank you, eric -- Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50, org 9.1.5 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian 8 and Debian 9 Dual Boot
Le 21/12/2017 à 20:07, Dan Norton a écrit : Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: A615A904-0620-459F-BF44-5E53E54FDF24 Device Start End Sectors Size Type /dev/sda1 2048 411647 409600 200M BIOS boot (...) Is there a problem here? Yes. /dev/sda1 has the type "BIOS boot" but is actually used as an EFI system partition, according to df and /etc/fstab. So it should have the type "EFI system". Before moving on to multiboot with LVM and GPT, I'd like to change the menu entries to something more consistent. The last install is referred to as "Debian GNU/Linux" but that's ambiguous. Which Debian GNU/Linux? If each entry was in the form "Debian GNU/Linux 9 (stretch) (on /dev/mapper/vol2-root)" that would really be explicit. Also I want some more time to mull over which to boot. The details for other detected OSes are provided by os-prober. The entry title for the main OS is derived from the GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR variable in /etc/default/grub. You can tweak it to fit your needs. If lsb-release is installed, changing -i to -d will provide more details such as the Debian version and codename.
Re: installing ufraw on buster
On Thu 28 Dec 2017 at 18:44:46 +, Eric S Fraga wrote: > On Thursday, 28 Dec 2017 at 08:34, Brian wrote: > > [...] > > > 'apt search' (and 'apt-cache search') gets its information from what is > > in lists. Try searching through all files there with > > > > grep "^Package:.*ufraw" * > > Well, interesting. ufraw is listed in > > ftp.uk.debian.org_debian_dists_main_binary-amd64_Packages > > but apt search doesn't fine it. > > Very strange. What is the error message? Does 'apt search ' find anything? How about 'apt show ufraw'? Comment out everything in sources.list and do 'apt update'. There should now be no package information in lists. Delete pkgcache.bin and srcpkgcache.bin. Add the single line deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian buster main to sources.list and do 'apt update'. 'apt search ufraw'? (I'd use "deb http://deb.debian.org/debian buster main" but that is probably neither here nor there). -- Brian.
Re: GRUB and boot partition
Le 29/12/2017 à 11:02, deloptes a écrit : microsoft gaofei wrote: I'm thinking about a question ,how my hard disk admits so much data ? If /boot partition is encrypted , then how does my hard disk admit GRUB ? sudo fdisk /dev/sda , and press o to create a DOS partition table . This software starts on sector 2048 by default . So how does the 2048 sectors admit GRUB to achieve encrypted /boot ? FWIW, here is what I replied to the OP's private mail : GRUB core image embeds all the required modules to read /boot/grub, including crypto modules when /boot/grub is encrypted. 2048 512-byte sectors is 1 MiB. GRUB BIOS core image does not need so much space. GRUB BIOS was developed at a time when partition alignment was based on "cylinders", so the first partition usually started at sector 63. GRUB BIOS core image was initially designed to fit in that 30 KiB space. It has grown a bit over time and is sometimes slightly bigger than 30 KiB, but 1 MiB is still plenty of space. A copy of GRUB BIOS core image is kept in /boot/grub/i386-pc/core.img, so you can see its size. you don't encrypt boot Why not ?
Re: unison compatibility in stretch
On 13/12/17 17:49, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > On 13/12/17 17:29, Anders Andersson wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Tony van der Hoff >> wrote: >>> On 13/12/17 15:40, Curt wrote: Sorry for butting in once again, but you do have unison-all installed, the metapackage which allows specifically for the -addversionno "kludge" by bringing in versions 2.32 and 2.40 as per the following post curiously similar to your case (two machines, one with Debian Jessie and one with Debian Stretch) https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/233504/how-to-use-multiple-versions-of-unison-on-one-system and then working around the eventual minor version number truncation bug, if indeed it still exists, as per my previous cryptic message. >>> I'm fed up with trying bodgy work-arounds, which really should not be >>> required. I have now spent so much time on this issue that I've become >>> thoroughly disenchanted with Unison (which is great when it works) that >>> I'm taking my custom elsewhere. >> Do you have a good alternative? I'm fed up with Unison since a long >> time, because of such an important tool not handling different >> versions, and the impracticality of writing it in yet another >> experimental language requiring its own complete little world to build >> and run. >> > As mentioned upthread, "Syncthing" [https://docs.syncthing.net] seems to > do much the same as Unison, hopefully more sensibly. I'm going to give > it a try over the next few days, and I'll report back here. > Well, "the next few days" turned out to be a drawn-out frustrating struggle, with no benefit. Syncthing appears to be an extremely powerful file synchronization tool, with an emphasis on security, which in theory would make it an excellent replacement for unison. However, after many days struggling wit its configuration through two firewalls and a NAT router, trying to synchronize 3 systems, with more to add, I've given up. The machines appear to connect, and some meta-data is transferred, but no data transfers take place. I've decided to give up on Syncthing, and revert to Unison, which means upgrading my server, but hey, what are holidays for? Cheers, Tony
Re: system boots to terminal -Solved
On 28/12/17 15:05, Felix Miata wrote: > Tony van der Hoff composed on 2017-12-28 14:39 (UTC): > >> I should have said I'm using KDE, so I guess gdm stanzas are inappropriate. >> Anyway, I'm seeing: >> $ cat /etc/X11/default-display-manager >> /usr/bin/sddm >> Should I dpkg-reconfigure that? > If that doesn't get the job done, don't be surprised. Cross-distro, sddm is > anything but the most reliable of DMs. For any who want restoration of all DM > features lost with KDM's demise, Trinity Desktop offers TDM. Otherwise, give > lightdm a try. TDM is the only DM I use on Stretch. Thanks, all for the useful tips. Indeed, dpkg-reconfigure had the desired effect Cheers, Tony
Re: No sound in Firefox
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, deloptes wrote: check what is set as default in your not working profile in pavucontrol. I found that when the audio device is set as default it works. perhaps FF has same problem. This is the green checked mark on the right in output. Alas, the audio device is the good one in pavucontrol, and actually, the files pavucontrol.ini are identical other option is you lack permissions - if FF is only app with this issue unlikely. yes, ffx is the only app with this issue I think that until a fix is found, I'll run ffx as root. thank you for your help. best regards, -- Pierre Frenkiel
Re: GRUB and boot partition
microsoft gaofei wrote: > I'm thinking about a question ,how my hard disk admits so much data ? If > /boot partition is encrypted , then how does my hard disk admit GRUB ? > > sudo fdisk /dev/sda , and press o to create a DOS partition table . This > software starts on sector 2048 by default . So how does the 2048 sectors > admit GRUB to achieve encrypted /boot ? you don't encrypt boot
