Re: [OT] - Software para leer data loggers

[Jorge Abel Secreto]

El mié, 12 jun 2024 a la(s) 5:13 a.m., Camaleón (noela...@gmail.com) escribió:
>
> El 2024-06-11 a las 12:41 -0300, Jorge Abel Secreto escribió:
>
> > Hola!!
> > Disculpen que moleste con esto.
> > Estoy tratando de leer los registros de un data logger de temperaturas
> > TESTO 174T desde Debian 12.
> > El sistema lo ve asi:
> > usb 1-3: new full-speed USB device number 4 using xhci_hcd
> > usb 1-3: New USB device found, idVendor=128d, idProduct=0013, bcdDevice= 
> > 6.00
> > usb 1-3: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=0
> > usb 1-3: Product: testo 174-2010
> > usb 1-3: Manufacturer: Testo SE & Co. KGaA
> > El fabricante provee un programa para Windows pero me gustaría poder
> > hacerlo desde Linux.
>
> Pídeselo ;-)
>
> ***
> https://static.testo.com/image/upload/Instruction-manual-and-Software/Instruction-manuals/testo-comfort-software-basic-5-manual-de-instrucciones.pdf
>
> 3.2. Requisitos del sistema
>
> Sistema operativo
>
> El software funciona con los siguientes sistemas operativos:
>
> • Windows ® 10
> • Windows ® 11
> • Otros: a pedido
>   ^^^
> ***
>
> > Las busquedas por "linux data logger testo 174" me traen referencias a
> > la página oficial o a paginas de vendedores del aparato.
> > Buscando en Synaptic no encuentro nada que parezca servir.
> > ¿Estoy buscando mal?
> > ¿Alguno de ustedes usa algo que me pueda servir?
>
> Máquina virtual o emulador (Wine).
>
> Para estos casos no se me ocurre nada más, son aplicaciones
> propietarias desarrolladas para un producto concreto, propietario, así
> que mal asunto :-(
>
> Saludos,
>
> --
> Camaleón
>

Muchas gracias por las respuestas
Tendré que mantener un Win andando para leer este aparato.
No tengo la esperanza de que los de Testo me den el protocolo de
comunicación :-P
Encima tenemos un solo registrador, no justifica ningún desarrollo.
Como de costumbre siempre hay cosas mas urgentes :-/
Nuevamente muchas gracias por su atención,
Abrazos

-- 
Jorge A Secreto
Analista de Sistemas
MP 361

Re: [OT] - Software para leer data loggers

[Camaleón]

El 2024-06-11 a las 12:41 -0300, Jorge Abel Secreto escribió:

> Hola!!
> Disculpen que moleste con esto.
> Estoy tratando de leer los registros de un data logger de temperaturas
> TESTO 174T desde Debian 12.
> El sistema lo ve asi:
> usb 1-3: new full-speed USB device number 4 using xhci_hcd
> usb 1-3: New USB device found, idVendor=128d, idProduct=0013, bcdDevice= 6.00
> usb 1-3: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=0
> usb 1-3: Product: testo 174-2010
> usb 1-3: Manufacturer: Testo SE & Co. KGaA
> El fabricante provee un programa para Windows pero me gustaría poder
> hacerlo desde Linux.

Pídeselo ;-)

***
https://static.testo.com/image/upload/Instruction-manual-and-Software/Instruction-manuals/testo-comfort-software-basic-5-manual-de-instrucciones.pdf

3.2. Requisitos del sistema

Sistema operativo

El software funciona con los siguientes sistemas operativos:

• Windows ® 10
• Windows ® 11
• Otros: a pedido
  ^^^
***

> Las busquedas por "linux data logger testo 174" me traen referencias a
> la página oficial o a paginas de vendedores del aparato.
> Buscando en Synaptic no encuentro nada que parezca servir.
> ¿Estoy buscando mal?
> ¿Alguno de ustedes usa algo que me pueda servir?

Máquina virtual o emulador (Wine).

Para estos casos no se me ocurre nada más, son aplicaciones 
propietarias desarrolladas para un producto concreto, propietario, así 
que mal asunto :-(

Saludos,

-- 
Camaleón 

Re: [OT] - Software para leer data loggers

[Eduardo Jorge Gil Michelena]

 El martes, 11 de junio de 2024, 12:42:23 p. m. ART, Jorge Abel Secreto 
 escribió:

Estoy tratando de leer los registros de un data logger de temperaturas
TESTO 174T desde Debian 12.
El sistema lo ve asi:
usb 1-3: new full-speed USB device number 4 using xhci_hcd
usb 1-3: New USB device found, idVendor=128d, idProduct=0013, bcdDevice= 6.00
usb 1-3: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=0
usb 1-3: Product: testo 174-2010
usb 1-3: Manufacturer: Testo SE & Co. KGaA
El fabricante provee un programa para Windows pero me gustaría poder
hacerlo desde Linux.
Las busquedas por "linux data logger testo 174" me traen referencias a
la página oficial o a paginas de vendedores del aparato.
Buscando en Synaptic no encuentro nada que parezca servir.
¿Estoy buscando mal?
¿Alguno de ustedes usa algo que me pueda servir?
--
Jorge A Secreto
-

RESPUESTA:

Difícil (no imposible pero casi) que en Synaptic encuentres algo específico.

Te quedan dos (o tres) alternativas:
A) Usar el programa provisto por el fabricante mediante WINE o maquina virtual 
con Windows

B) Intentar "entrar" por el USB a los archivos del aparato y tratar de tomar 
los datos de allí

C) LLamar al fabricante para que te indique la forma en que el aparato guarda 
los datos y la forma de manejo de ellos. Luego,,, tendrás que hacer un 
`programejo para usar los datos.

Sino...
Considera usar un Raspberry Pi con sensor de temperatura... incluso te puede 
salir más barato hacer el aparato.  

[OT] - Software para leer data loggers

[Jorge Abel Secreto]

Hola!!
Disculpen que moleste con esto.
Estoy tratando de leer los registros de un data logger de temperaturas
TESTO 174T desde Debian 12.
El sistema lo ve asi:
usb 1-3: new full-speed USB device number 4 using xhci_hcd
usb 1-3: New USB device found, idVendor=128d, idProduct=0013, bcdDevice= 6.00
usb 1-3: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=0
usb 1-3: Product: testo 174-2010
usb 1-3: Manufacturer: Testo SE & Co. KGaA
El fabricante provee un programa para Windows pero me gustaría poder
hacerlo desde Linux.
Las busquedas por "linux data logger testo 174" me traen referencias a
la página oficial o a paginas de vendedores del aparato.
Buscando en Synaptic no encuentro nada que parezca servir.
¿Estoy buscando mal?
¿Alguno de ustedes usa algo que me pueda servir?
Muchas gracias por su atención.
Abrazos

-- 
Jorge A Secreto
Analista de Sistemas
MP 361

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Larry Martell]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 6:26 AM Curt  wrote:
>
> On 2024-04-22, Reid  wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry I irked you so much Curt, but you don't have to be rude.
>
> I'm Curt.

Let's be serious. You be Frank and I'll be Earnest.

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Curt]

On 2024-04-22, Reid  wrote:
>
> I'm sorry I irked you so much Curt, but you don't have to be rude.

I'm Curt.

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 05:02:09PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> > Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
> >> > Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html
> >> Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?
> > but perhaps without all the deception crap, unless you really mean
> > to impugn the developers' motives.
> 
> Yup, better try to make the developers/maintainers your friends, so you
> may get them to do something with which they disagree just to make you
> happy, rather than refuse to do something out of spite, even tho they
> know it's right.
> 

Hi Stefan,

As you say, there are ways to get the developers to pay attention to
you. One of them, at least, is to be constructive and to assume good
faith. Developers will often take the best technical solution rather
than doing it "just to make you happy".

Rarely do developers do something out of spite though there may be
massive technical disagreements. It's probably worth remembering 
that Debian developers are also users of Debian - and that we're 
all more or less on the same side.

Imputation of bad faith (or snarky comments) don't help either the 
person commented on or the reputation of the commenter, necessarily.

With every good wish, as ever,

Andrew Cater
[amaca...@debian.org]

> 
> Stefan
> 

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
>> > Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html
>> Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?
> but perhaps without all the deception crap, unless you really mean
> to impugn the developers' motives.

Yup, better try to make the developers/maintainers your friends, so you
may get them to do something with which they disagree just to make you
happy, rather than refuse to do something out of spite, even tho they
know it's right.


Stefan

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Reid]

Andrew M.A. Cater  wrote:
> That's probably a bug in Calamares. I checked with one of the live cd 
> maintainers on this. As has been pointed out, the live cd is really
> intended more for checking than for major use but it does need some work.
> If you found the non-free components - where were they - under the /firmware
> directory?


Thank you for the very helpful reply Andrew.

I always use Debian's "Graphical Installer" option.
I'm not sure what Calamares is, but will look into it.

However, I will also re-word what I now believe to be the primary issue
here into a more succinct message, figure out how to add line-wrap, 
and re-submit to a more appropriate list.

Thank you for everyone's helpful replies. Despite what one person 
said about not taking me seriously, I believe there's an important 
problem here, and that fixing it will be a good thing 
for the Debian project.

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Reid]

- Original message -
From: Curt 
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:
>
>> How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
>> according to our venerable guidelines?
>> Get a popular setting going, buddy.
>>
>> And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct with
>> well-wrapped lines is the height of mailing-list sophistication (unless
>> your Marcel, which you ain't).
>
>The Debian mailing list guidelines (for our less supple intellects).


1. Disregard important suggestions of newcomers who don't line wrap.
2. Bombastically tell them they don't have supple intellects.
Are those part of the mailing list guidelines, Curt? 

I'm sorry I irked you so much Curt, but you don't have to be rude.
It was the first time I've ever messaged a Debian list, 
and it's been years since I've had to set line-wrap.

"Let us be grateful to the people who make us happy; 
they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom."
― Marcel Proust

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 11:31:03AM -0700, Reid wrote:
> Debian's policy change on non-free-firmware has made much of the Debian.org
> website very misleading, and some Debian OS installers have become very
> Free Software UNfriendly and deceptive. The following is my experience,
> and the reasons why I believe Debian must re-word their promotional web
> pages, and update all their installers to respect user choice regarding
> installation of non-free-firmware or not:

I respect your experience. I think Debian made strenuous efforts to
make the change, to publicise it, to hold an open vote. It was covered 
by a bunch of the tech press - it wasn't hidden in any way.

Others have pointed you to the resources on that.

> 
> I'm a 10+ year Debian user, and a longtime Free Software supporter. Two
> weeks ago I was shocked to discover 29 non-free components in the Debian
> desktop I'd been using for the last couple months. There hadn't been any
> opt-in or even a notice about Debian's major policy change during the
> installation process (I use the Debian installer via the Live images),
> so I was completely unaware.
> 

That's probably a bug in Calamares. I checked with one of the live cd 
maintainers on this. As has been pointed out, the live cd is really
intended more for checking than for major use but it does need some work.
If you found the non-free components - where were they - under the /firmware
directory?

> In my initial attempts to figure out what was going on, I also didn't find
> any prominent announcement of the major policy change on Debian.org's
> homepage. Moreover, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" homepage links
> still give the impression that Debian is Free-Software-Friendly. That's 
> extremely misleading now (automatically installing 29 non-free components 
> with neither permission nor warning is not Free Software friendly).
> 

Debian *is* Free software friendly: the manufacturers aren't and the non-free
firmware included is to allow people to actually install Debian. The project
deliberately split the firmware out into a new repository, tagged as non-free
and gave instructions as to what that was. The Project doesn't recommend
the use of other non-free software but retains that repository separately for
those that want to use it.

> If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy"
> and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the
> installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings
> of the new policy on the download pages. Until that's done, the
> "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" pages (and perhaps others) should be
> re-worded so as to not be so misleading.
>

The philosophy remains the same: there is an option during installation
and there are explicit opt-ins to each repository that gets added to 
/etc/apt/sources.list or equivalent. If you *really* want to check,
do an expert install of Debian which includes the lowest priority questions
that can generally be omitted in a standard install.
 
> I was disappointed to eventually read of Debian's "vote"
> on non-free-firmware. Though I do understand the desire to make Debian more
> friendly to new users, doing so by misleading and alienating many existing
> users doesn't make a lot of sense IMO:
>

The vote was as standard vote via General Resolution not just a "vote".
Doing this has allowed some new users to install Debian. Visually impaired
users may need non-free firmware just to be able to hear the installer: 
others may need WiFi to work - not all machines now have Ethernet available.
 
> After reading of this change, I then spent the next week trying to figure
> out how to re-install Debian without the non-free firmware. That's when I
> discovered that Debian has suddenly become very Free-Software-UNfriendly.
> Even when I used the "firmware=never" method on the Debian installer
> (Live image dvd), the 29 non-free components were still installed! Without
> warning. That "firmware=never" method is what Debian.org itself is
> recommending (on a rather deep link sadly), but it doesn't even work!
> 

See above: this may be a consequence of using the live DVD

> So I eventually abandoned that longtime favorite method of installing my
> preferred desktop, and switched to the NON-Live DVD installation... But
> then discovered that using "firmware=never" method there also blocks
> FREE-firmware that used to get installed. So now my Wifi adapter didn't
> work, whereas it always worked with Debian 11/Bullseye and earlier
> installations.

Which chipset, please? If you installed the free firmware package, what
changed?

> 
> Ultimately it took me about a week, and about a dozen Debian Bookworm 
> 

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Curt]

On 2024-04-22, Nate Bargmann  wrote:
>
> I endure this on many other mailing lists unrelated to Debian,
> particularly from groups.io that have a Web interface.

It's a violation of Debian mailing list posting rules, guidelines, and
tips.

It irks me that in certain cases these guidelines are evoked with
a supercilious alacrity, and at other times not at all, leading me to
believe in the inherent bias of the rule-makers.
>
>

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2024 22 Apr 09:39 -0500, Curt wrote:
> On 2024-04-21, Reid  wrote:
> > You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of 
> > release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is 
> > not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who 
> > We Are / What We Do" pages are currently promoting Debian as.
> 
> How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
> according to our venerable guidelines?
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists
> 
>  Set linewrap to 65-78 characters. 72 is a popular setting. 

Looking at the OP's headers I see:

X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface 

User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-379-gabd37849b7-fm-20240408.001-gabd37849  


It appears our friend is using a Web browser and likely is presented
with a text box that looks all nice and neat with wrapping and all but
hits the list as one long line per paragraph.

> Get a popular setting going, buddy.

Until he sets up a real MUA, I doubt the formatting will improve.

I endure this on many other mailing lists unrelated to Debian,
particularly from groups.io that have a Web interface.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Curt]

On 2024-04-22, fxkl4...@protonmail.com  wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-21, Reid  wrote:
>>> You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of 
>>> release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is 
>>> not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who 
>>> We Are / What We Do" pages are currently promoting Debian as.
>>
>> How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
>> according to our venerable guidelines?
>>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists
>>
>> Set linewrap to 65-78 characters. 72 is a popular setting.
>>
>> Get a popular setting going, buddy.
>>
>> And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct with
>> well-wrapped lines is the height of mailing-list sophistication (unless
>> your Marcel, which you ain't).
>>
>> Of course, it's also true these guidelines are never evoked with
>> anything approaching equanimity, so forget I even mentioned them.
>>
>
> mentioned what
>
The Debian mailing list guidelines (for our less supple intellects).


-- 

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[fxkl47BF]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, Curt wrote:

> On 2024-04-21, Reid  wrote:
>> You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of 
>> release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is 
>> not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We 
>> Are / What We Do" pages are currently promoting Debian as.
>
> How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
> according to our venerable guidelines?
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists
>
> Set linewrap to 65-78 characters. 72 is a popular setting.
>
> Get a popular setting going, buddy.
>
> And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct with
> well-wrapped lines is the height of mailing-list sophistication (unless
> your Marcel, which you ain't).
>
> Of course, it's also true these guidelines are never evoked with
> anything approaching equanimity, so forget I even mentioned them.
>

mentioned what

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Curt]

On 2024-04-21, Reid  wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of 
> release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is 
> not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We 
> Are / What We Do" pages are currently promoting Debian as.

How can you be taken seriously when you can't even wrap your lines
according to our venerable guidelines?

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists

 Set linewrap to 65-78 characters. 72 is a popular setting. 

Get a popular setting going, buddy. 

And, though it's true I extolled Proust recently, being succinct with
well-wrapped lines is the height of mailing-list sophistication (unless
your Marcel, which you ain't).

Of course, it's also true these guidelines are never evoked with
anything approaching equanimity, so forget I even mentioned them.

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Sun Apr 21, 2024 at 9:58 PM BST, Reid wrote:
> If the Installers are not ALL going to give users the choice to opt-in
> or opt-out of non-free components, then those above-mentioned
> promotional pages really need to be updated so as to not be misleading
> users.

I'm sure the Debian WWW team would be welcome of some help addressing
issues. The communication point for them is the debian-www[1] mailing
list, and there's a www.debian.org pseudo-package in the Debian BTS[2]
where bugs and patches can be filed.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-www/
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=www.debian.org

> But BETTER yet, why not just update all the installers to give users
> that choice? That's what I'm strongly suggesting. Something very
> wrong/misleading/deceptive is happening right now.

Likewise, the installer team communicate with a dedicated list
debian-boot[3], and the installer(s) have their own BTS components:
one is debian-installer[4], but I'm not sure what the Live DVD is
covered by.

[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/
[4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=debian-installer

The list you are posting on is a User list, so there's no guarantee that
the relevant Developers will see your messages.


Best wishes,

-- 
Please do not CC me for listmail.

  Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
   https://jmtd.net

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Michael Kjörling]

On 21 Apr 2024 13:58 -0700, from reid...@proinbox.com (Reid):
> You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX
> pages of release notes and guides in order to learn that what
> they're installing is not what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian",
> "Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / What We Do" pages are currently
> promoting Debian as.
> 
> That's not right. Period. If the Installers are not ALL going to
> give users the choice to opt-in or opt-out of non-free components,
> then those above-mentioned promotional pages really need to be
> updated so as to not be misleading users.

I'm saying that _this hasn't changed_ between Bullseye and Bookworm.
Reading the release notes or the installation guide has been very
strongly recommended practice for a _very_ long time; and the
_documented_ behavior of the installer, except for the non-free /
non-free-firmware split, is essentially unchanged in this regard.

Lambasting the Debian developers with a post on the Debian _users_
mailing list seems to me to be unlikely to lead to the improvements
which you clearly seek. Making a _reasoned_ bug report against the
appropriate package, _without_ including pages of hyperbole, seems
more likely to have a _constructive_ outcome for everyone involved.


> But BETTER yet, why not just update all the installers to give users
> that choice? That's what I'm strongly suggesting. Something very
> wrong/misleading/deceptive is happening right now.

If that's what you are suggesting, _I_ suggest to make a wishlist bug
report to that effect against the appropriate packages, which is how
such suggestions are made and tracked in Debian. Again, _without_
pages of hyperbole which can only serve to annoy and detract from the
point you seem to be trying to make. (Yes, I'm sure you feel
differently, but consider what is relevant for someone trying to
triage or fix an issue rather than your feelings about it.) If you're
able to also provide a proposed patch to that effect, then that's even
better.

I also suggest to please take a moment to read through the Debian Code
of Conduct . May I suggest
paying particular attention to point 2 "assume good faith" and point 4
"try to be concise"? It's certainly fine to elaborate on the reasoning
behind the point you're making, but especially if you elaborate at
length (and I would certainly call ~1700 words "at length" in this
context), the specific point you're making should ideally be up front
so that people can quickly and easily tell what you're talking about
and whether that's relevant to them. Consider that a courtesy to the
some 3000 people on this list.

-- 
Michael Kjörling  https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[David Wright]

On Sun 21 Apr 2024 at 21:59:21 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
> > Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html
> 
> Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?

but perhaps without all the deception crap, unless you really mean
to impugn the developers' motives.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Stefan Monnier]

> Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?
> Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html

Maybe `reportbug debian-installer`?


Stefan

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Reid]

Do you have any suggestion as to which list would be better to contact?

Original: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html


- Original message -
From: fxkl4...@protonmail.com
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 3:52 PM

do you think the debian gods are listening


On Sun, 21 Apr 2024, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy"
>> and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the
>> installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings
>> of the new policy on the download pages.
>
> Agreed.  It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
> extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
> It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[fxkl47BF]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy"
>> and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the
>> installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings
>> of the new policy on the download pages.
>
> Agreed.  It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
> extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
> It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.


do you think the debian gods are listening

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Stefan Monnier]

> If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy"
> and "Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the
> installation process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings
> of the new policy on the download pages.

Agreed.  It should be easy to adjust the installation process with an
extra step whether to include/install non-free-firmware or not.
It's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the problem.


Stefan

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Reid]

You seem to be suggesting that Debian users now need to read XX pages of 
release notes and guides in order to learn that what they're installing is not 
what the Debian.org homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy", and "Who We Are / 
What We Do" pages are currently promoting Debian as.

That's not right. Period. If the Installers are not ALL going to give users the 
choice to opt-in or opt-out of non-free components, then those above-mentioned 
promotional pages really need to be updated so as to not be misleading users. 

But BETTER yet, why not just update all the installers to give users that 
choice? That's what I'm strongly suggesting. Something very 
wrong/misleading/deceptive is happening right now.

Regarding "perhaps it could be spelled out more explicitly... that live media 
is primarily for trying out Debian": Using those live image Debian installers 
has been very convenient up through Bullseye because they automatically 
installed a preferred Desktop. But if those installers are now also going 
install 29 non-free packages without clear warning and without opt-in/out 
choices (as they currently are), then there should be a GIANT RED WARNING on 
the live-image download page of that fact. All those live images also contain 
installers, and it's unreasonable to expect that people who are trying Debian 
out would not later use the built-in installer if they like what they've tried. 
But at the moment, it they do use those installers, what they're getting is not 
what's been promoted on Debian homepage "Why Debian", "Our Philosophy" and "Who 
We Are / What We Do" pages.

This is about Doing what's right and/or Telling the truth. Best would be both. 
But what's currently happening is neither.

P.S. Regarding your link to 
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/ch02s02.en.html , those 
instructions don't even work on the live images. Worse, they don't say that 
they don't work on the live images. So even if a user reads that entire guide, 
they'll only get instructions that don't even work. That's deceptive.

This is in reply to: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00325.html

Original post: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00324.html

Re: Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Michael Kjörling]

On 21 Apr 2024 11:31 -0700, from reid...@proinbox.com (Reid):
> I'm a 10+ year Debian user, and a longtime Free Software supporter.
> Two weeks ago I was shocked to discover 29 non-free components in
> the Debian desktop I'd been using for the last couple months. There
> hadn't been any opt-in or even a notice about Debian's major policy
> change during the installation process (I use the Debian installer
> via the Live images), so I was completely unaware.
> 
> In my initial attempts to figure out what was going on, I also
> didn't find any prominent announcement of the major policy change on
> Debian.org's homepage. Moreover, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why
> Debian" homepage links still give the impression that Debian is
> Free-Software-Friendly. That's extremely misleading now
> (automatically installing 29 non-free components with neither
> permission nor warning is not Free Software friendly).

Did you look through the installation guide, reading which before
installing Debian is _highly recommended_?

Out of Bookworm's installation guide:

Section 2.2 "Devices Requiring Firmware" specifically discusses that
non-free firmware, which previously was in non-free, has been moved to
the non-free-firmware component instead.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/ch02s02.en.html

(That also links to the full vote record.)

Section 6.4.2 "Firmware and the Installed System" also discusses this,
and specifically mentions that the non-free-firmware section may be
added to the installed system's apt configuration.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/ch06s04.en.html#idm2657

Note that this is _essentially unchanged_ from Bullseye, which would
add the much broader non-free component under the same circumstances.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/ch06s04.en.html#idm2844

Similarly for an upgrade, it is also _highly recommended_ to read
through the release notes for the version you're upgrading to.

The release notes for Bookworm discusses the addition of the
non-free-firmware component in at least three places (2.2, 4.2.8 and 5.1.1):
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#archive-areas
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#non-free-firmware
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#non-free-split

The Bookworm release announcement also discusses the introduction of
the non-free-firmware component: https://www.debian.org/News/2023/20230610

_That_, in turn, is linked to from the Bookworm release page (see the
first paragraph, which still discusses the initial Debian 12.0 release
alongside that 12.5 is the current Bookworm release):

https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/

I'm honestly not sure how much more prominently the information on the
non-free-firmware component reasonably _can_ be published.

As for live media, perhaps it could be spelled out more explicitly;
but the fact that live media is primarily for trying out Debian and
only secondary for installation should be a fairly strong hint that
the more advanced installation procedures, such as passing parameters
to the installer on the kernel command line, _might_ not work the same
as with dedicated installation media such as the netinst image linked
to from the web site front page. The live media download page that one
can click through to ("other downloads" -> "try Debian live before
installing") also mentions that it contains the Calamares Installer
"as alternative to" Debian-Installer, whereas the installation guide
speaks _specifically_ of debian-installer in the context of firmware
lookup during installation; another suggestion (which, yes, could
perhaps be made more explicit) that there might be differences. If you
have a concrete suggestion for how this could be made clearer, I
suspect that the Debian Installer and Debian Webmaster teams would
appreciate suggestions.

-- 
Michael Kjörling  https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

Debian non-free-firmware policy making OS misleading and Free Software unfriendly

[Reid]

Debian's policy change on non-free-firmware has made much of the Debian.org 
website very misleading, and some Debian OS installers have become very Free 
Software UNfriendly and deceptive. The following is my experience, and the 
reasons why I believe Debian must re-word their promotional web pages, and 
update all their installers to respect user choice regarding installation of 
non-free-firmware or not:

I'm a 10+ year Debian user, and a longtime Free Software supporter. Two weeks 
ago I was shocked to discover 29 non-free components in the Debian desktop I'd 
been using for the last couple months. There hadn't been any opt-in or even a 
notice about Debian's major policy change during the installation process (I 
use the Debian installer via the Live images), so I was completely unaware.

In my initial attempts to figure out what was going on, I also didn't find any 
prominent announcement of the major policy change on Debian.org's homepage. 
Moreover, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why Debian" homepage links still give the 
impression that Debian is Free-Software-Friendly. That's extremely misleading 
now (automatically installing 29 non-free components with neither permission 
nor warning is not Free Software friendly).

If Debian is going to continue promoting itself with those "Our Philosophy" and 
"Why Debian" pages, there should at least be opt-ins during the installation 
process of every Debian download, as well as prominent warnings of the new 
policy on the download pages. Until that's done, the "Our Philosophy" and "Why 
Debian" pages (and perhaps others) should be re-worded so as to not be so 
misleading.

I was disappointed to eventually read of Debian's "vote" on non-free-firmware. 
Though I do understand the desire to make Debian more friendly to new users, 
doing so by misleading and alienating many existing users doesn't make a lot of 
sense IMO:

After reading of this change, I then spent the next week trying to figure out 
how to re-install Debian without the non-free firmware. That's when I 
discovered that Debian has suddenly become very Free-Software-UNfriendly. Even 
when I used the "firmware=never" method on the Debian installer (Live image 
dvd), the 29 non-free components were still installed! Without warning. That 
"firmware=never" method is what Debian.org itself is recommending (on a rather 
deep link sadly), but it doesn't even work!

So I eventually abandoned that longtime favorite method of installing my 
preferred desktop, and switched to the NON-Live DVD installation... But then 
discovered that using "firmware=never" method there also blocks FREE-firmware 
that used to get installed. So now my Wifi adapter didn't work, whereas it 
always worked with Debian 11/Bullseye and earlier installations.

Ultimately it took me about a week, and about a dozen Debian Bookworm 
re-installations, and even hiring a developer, to get an installation via DVD 
that was similar to what was previously installed by default. I've provided 
some tips below to others who are struggling. However, Debian needs to change 
all it's installers to provide "opt-in" for anything non-free. Even if that 
"opt-in" is checked by default, it should be easy to opt-out. Debian's current 
leadership may have lost sight of their own "Why Debian" and "Our Philosophy" 
and "Who we are and what we do" claims, but Free Software philosophy is still 
important to many people. Actually, it's still important, period. But whether 
the current leader/"voters" agree or understand or not, there should be choice 
for users.

Until the installers are updated, the Debian.org homepage and "Why Debian" and 
"Our Philosophy" and download pages should all be changed. Keeping them as they 
are is worse than misleading IMO (false advertising? bait-and-switch? 
negligent?). While an attorney could be consulted, why not just be responsible, 
and honest, and inclusive, by adding simple opt-in/out options on all Debian's 
installers?

Until the Debian installers are fixed, hopefully the tips below help some Free 
Software supporters who wish to continue using Debian. Note that I'm not a 
developer, so there may be mistakes in these instructions. If you find any 
mistakes, or have suggestions for improvement on these instructions, please 
post your suggestions in a reply:

1) Above all, avoid Debian 12 Bookworm's "Live image" installations. Those will 
install non-free firmware on your system no matter what you do. Even when I 
followed Debian.org's instructions for adding "firmware=never" before 
installing the OS, I still ended up with 29 non-free components on my system. 
That's exactly the same number as without "firmware=never", which means this 
method of blocking non-free-firmware doesn't work with Debian's live images. 

Re: Could Gnome's "install pending software updates" cause installation scripts to misbehave?

[Lucas B. Cohen]

On Fri 29 Mar 2024 at 11:06:45 (-0400), Henning Follmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:01:27PM +0100, Lucas B. Cohen wrote:

Hi,

I've had a bit of a headache understanding why my Debian bookworm system
suddenly panicked at boot with an 'unable to mount root fs' error. Turns out
the first of my two menuentries in grub.cfg were no longer specifying the
linux root by its device UUID (as I was expecting it to do, by honoring
GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID != true) ; instead these menuentries were using the
device node/file (/dev/md0 in this case, hence the kernel panic).



Was there any error message during the update?
I think what might have gone wrong, that you ran out of space on /boot.


Space on /boot couldn't have been the issue, I have 1GB allocated to 
that partition, and those 2 kernels only take up about a third of that 
space.


The was no visible error message at the time, as it's all hidden from 
the user's view by Gnome, right before power off. However I'm checking 
my /var/log/apt/term.log where it was handily stored, and here's what 
I'm seeing:


- seems that grub-mkconfig (the grub script called by Debian's 
update-grub wrapper) was in fact never called during that update 
sequence! (Therefore Gnome's handling of updates is off the hook.) 
Perhaps it was because of some bad dkms and linux-headers interaction. 
Some module failed to build, which cascaded into leaving the kernel and 
headers packages into the 'unconfigured' state:


Building module:
Cleaning build area...
env NV_VERBOSE=1 make -j12 modules 
KERNEL_UNAME=6.1.0-18-amd64...(bad exit status: 2)

Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 6.1.0-18-amd64 (x86_64)
Consult /var/lib/dkms/nvidia-current/525.147.05/build/make.log for more 
information.

Error! One or more modules failed to install during autoinstall.
Refer to previous errors for more information.
dkms: autoinstall for kernel: 6.1.0-18-amd64 failed!
run-parts: /etc/kernel/postinst.d/dkms exited with return code 11
dpkg: error processing package linux-image-6.1.0-18-amd64 (--configure):
 installed linux-image-6.1.0-18-amd64 package post-installation script 
subprocess returned error exit status 1


dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-headers-amd64:
 linux-headers-amd64 depends on linux-headers-6.1.0-18-amd64 (= 
6.1.76-1); however:

  Package linux-headers-6.1.0-18-amd64 is not configured yet.

- Consequence: my grub.cfg was only regenerated two days later, 
incidentally , during a scheduled unattended-upgrades run. Where


Log started: 2024-03-28  09:56:03
[...]
Removing linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 (6.1.66-1) ...
/etc/kernel/prerm.d/dkms:
[...]
depmod...
/etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs-tools:
[...]
/etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-update-grub:
Generating grub configuration file ...
Found background image: /usr/share/images/desktop-base/desktop-grub.png
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-6.1.0-18-amd64
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-6.1.0-17-amd64
Found initrd image: /boot/initrd.img-6.1.0-17-amd64
Warning: Not executing os-prober.
done
[...]
Error! One or more modules failed to install during autoinstall.
Refer to previous errors for more information.
dkms: autoinstall for kernel: 6.1.0-18-amd64 failed!
run-parts: /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/dkms exited with return code 11
Failed to process /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d at 
/var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-headers-6.1.0-18-amd64.postinst line 11.

dpkg: error processing package linux-headers-6.1.0-18-amd64 (--configure):
 installed linux-headers-6.1.0-18-amd64 package post-installation 
script subprocess returned error exit status 1

dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-amd64:
 linux-image-amd64 depends on linux-image-6.1.0-18-amd64 (= 6.1.76-1); 
however:

  Package linux-image-6.1.0-18-amd64 is not configured yet.

dpkg: error processing package linux-image-amd64 (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-headers-amd64:
 linux-headers-amd64 depends on linux-headers-6.1.0-18-amd64 (= 
6.1.76-1); however:

  Package linux-headers-6.1.0-18-amd64 is not configured yet.

dpkg: error processing package linux-headers-amd64 (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
 linux-image-6.1.0-18-amd64
 linux-headers-6.1.0-18-amd64
 linux-image-amd64
 linux-headers-amd64
Log ended: 2024-03-28  09:58:24

Something's now apparent: the initrd hadn't been created for this new 
-18 kernel until after grub-mkconfig's execution. My backed up erroneous 
grub.cfg confirms this. Maybe grub-mkconfig doesn't allow the use of 
UUID= absent an initrd? That would be enough to explain everything.


Anyway, this is not an easy thing to reproduce. I guess it just calls 
attention to the danger of unattended/automatic upgrades in odd cases 
like these.


Thanks Henning, and thank you David for your help. (Apologies for not 
replying to your messages; I'd forgotten to 

Re: Could Gnome's "install pending software updates" cause installation scripts to misbehave?

[David Wright]

On Fri 29 Mar 2024 at 11:06:45 (-0400), Henning Follmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:01:27PM +0100, Lucas B. Cohen wrote:
> > 
> > I've had a bit of a headache understanding why my Debian bookworm system
> > suddenly panicked at boot with an 'unable to mount root fs' error. Turns out
> > the first of my two menuentries in grub.cfg were no longer specifying the
> > linux root by its device UUID (as I was expecting it to do, by honoring
> > GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID != true) ; instead these menuentries were using the
> > device node/file (/dev/md0 in this case, hence the kernel panic).
> 
> Was there any error message during the update?
> I think what might have gone wrong, that you ran out of space on /boot.
> 
> > I've poured through the grub scripts a bit but they're quite complex. I've
> > noticed that :
> 
> Yeah, don't do that. These files are all automatically managed.
> All changes should be done in /etc/default/grub or in the config files in
> /etc/default/grub.d
> Then the grub config files are created by running
> update-grub
> 
> > - uninstalling the second of two kernels caused the remaining one to
> > correctly use the device UUID in grub.cfg ;
> 
> and that might have freed enough space on /boot.
> So now everything works again :)
> 
> > - reinstalling that second kernel caused grub.cfg to use UUIDs in all
> > menuentries, as expected.
> > 
> > (Kernel were the two most recent stable ones: 6.1.0-17 and -18.)
> > 
> > This leads me to suspect that my grub.cfg might have been damaged in the way
> > described above because update-grub might have been called in some unusual,
> > limited execution environment. I'd very recently powered off my system and
> > let the default "install pending software updates" option checked by
> > accident, which caused every updated package from the 12.5 release mark to
> > be pulled. I'm guessing that linux-image-6.1.0-18 was part of it.

I'd write "upgraded" rather than "pulled", if that's what you meant.

> > Has anyone witnessed something similar? Would anyone here care to check this
> > somehow? Or should I open a bug against gnome-desktop without waiting?
> >
> Usually it requires some trickery to install a new kernel on machines which
> might not have enough remaining space on the boot partition.
> 
> For simple housekeeping it often is sufficient to run 
> apt autoremove
> after recent updates (after you confirmed that the newly installed kernel
> boots fine).
> That usually frees enough space for a possible new update. 

You can also reduce the space taken up by initrd files, which are
getting rather large nowadays if they are built with MODULES=most
rather than MODULES=dep.

When you have at least two working kernels, remove any unnecessary
backups, copy the older kernel's initrd somewhere else, then rebuild
it with MODULES=dep. If that kernel still boots ok, then you probably
have a lot more room available now for the next kernel upgrade.
Finally, reboot the newer kernel.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Could Gnome's "install pending software updates" cause installation scripts to misbehave?

[Henning Follmann]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:01:27PM +0100, Lucas B. Cohen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've had a bit of a headache understanding why my Debian bookworm system
> suddenly panicked at boot with an 'unable to mount root fs' error. Turns out
> the first of my two menuentries in grub.cfg were no longer specifying the
> linux root by its device UUID (as I was expecting it to do, by honoring
> GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID != true) ; instead these menuentries were using the
> device node/file (/dev/md0 in this case, hence the kernel panic).
> 

Was there any error message during the update?
I think what might have gone wrong, that you ran out of space on /boot.


> I've poured through the grub scripts a bit but they're quite complex. I've
> noticed that :

Yeah, don't do that. These files are all automatically managed.
All changes should be done in /etc/default/grub or in the config files in
/etc/default/grub.d
Then the grub config files are created by running
update-grub


> 
> - uninstalling the second of two kernels caused the remaining one to
> correctly use the device UUID in grub.cfg ;

and that might have freed enough space on /boot.
So now everything works again :)

> 
> - reinstalling that second kernel caused grub.cfg to use UUIDs in all
> menuentries, as expected.
> 
> (Kernel were the two most recent stable ones: 6.1.0-17 and -18.)
> 
> This leads me to suspect that my grub.cfg might have been damaged in the way
> described above because update-grub might have been called in some unusual,
> limited execution environment. I'd very recently powered off my system and
> let the default "install pending software updates" option checked by
> accident, which caused every updated package from the 12.5 release mark to
> be pulled. I'm guessing that linux-image-6.1.0-18 was part of it.
> 
> Has anyone witnessed something similar? Would anyone here care to check this
> somehow? Or should I open a bug against gnome-desktop without waiting?
>

Usually it requires some trickery to install a new kernel on machines which
might not have enough remaining space on the boot partition.

For simple housekeeping it often is sufficient to run 
apt autoremove
after recent updates (after you confirmed that the newly installed kernel
boots fine).
That usually frees enough space for a possible new update. 


-H

-- 
Henning Follmann   | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com

Could Gnome's "install pending software updates" cause installation scripts to misbehave?

[Lucas B. Cohen]

Hi,

I've had a bit of a headache understanding why my Debian bookworm system 
suddenly panicked at boot with an 'unable to mount root fs' error. Turns 
out the first of my two menuentries in grub.cfg were no longer 
specifying the linux root by its device UUID (as I was expecting it to 
do, by honoring GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID != true) ; instead these 
menuentries were using the device node/file (/dev/md0 in this case, 
hence the kernel panic).


I've poured through the grub scripts a bit but they're quite complex. 
I've noticed that :


- uninstalling the second of two kernels caused the remaining one to 
correctly use the device UUID in grub.cfg ;


- reinstalling that second kernel caused grub.cfg to use UUIDs in all 
menuentries, as expected.


(Kernel were the two most recent stable ones: 6.1.0-17 and -18.)

This leads me to suspect that my grub.cfg might have been damaged in the 
way described above because update-grub might have been called in some 
unusual, limited execution environment. I'd very recently powered off my 
system and let the default "install pending software updates" option 
checked by accident, which caused every updated package from the 12.5 
release mark to be pulled. I'm guessing that linux-image-6.1.0-18 was 
part of it.


Has anyone witnessed something similar? Would anyone here care to check 
this somehow? Or should I open a bug against gnome-desktop without waiting?


Thank you for any insight.

Apologies for possible e-mail client misconfiguration.

Regards,

--
Lucas

Re: apt-cdrom: How do I use the flash drive as a CD-ROM to install software in Debian 12?

[David Wright]

On Thu 15 Jun 2023 at 21:32:41 (+), Totoro wrote:

> After entering
> 
> sudo apt update
> 
> The following messages appeared on the console:
> 
> Ign:1 cdrom://[Debian GNU/Linux 12.0.0 _Bookworm_ - Official amd64 DVD 
> Binary-1 with firmware 20230610-10:23"] bookworm InRelease
> Err:2 cdrom://[Debian GNU/Linux 12.0.0 _Bookworm_ - Official amd64 DVD 
> Binary-1 with firmware 20230610-10:23"] bookworm Release
> Please use apt-cdrom to make this CD-ROM recognized by APT. apt-get update 
> cannot be used to add new CD-ROMs.
> Reading package lists.Done
> 
> E: The repository 'cdrom://[Debian GNU/Linux 12.0.0 _Bookworm_ - Official 
> amd64 DVD Binary-1 with firmware 20230610-10:23"] bookworm Release' does not 
> have a Release file.
> N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore 
> disabled by default.
> N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration 
> details.
> 
> I have read the manpages of both 'apt-cdrom' and 'apt-secure' and they only 
> contain lists and descriptions of options and parameters. They do not contain 
> examples on how to use the options.
> 
> My objective is to mount the flash drive as a CD-ROM and use it to install 
> additional software. 

It looks as though you haven't added an entry in /etc/apt/sources.list
(or a file in its directory) for reading from the mounted stick.
Something like:

  deb file:/mnt/mount-iso bookworm main non-free contrib non-free-firmware

See   man sources.list

Cheers,
David.

apt-cdrom: How do I use the flash drive as a CD-ROM to install software in Debian 12?

[Totoro]

Hi

I "burned" the file called debian-12.0.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso to a USB flash drive 
and installed Debian 12 with it without an internet connection. I chose the 
bare minimal install, without any desktop environment.

Upon successful installation, my desktop computer rebooted to a console, tty1

I re-inserted the USB drive and based on the guide titled Use ISO image as 
CD-ROM repository in Ubuntu (url: 
https://techpiezo.com/linux/use-iso-image-as-cd-rom-repository-in-ubuntu/), I 
did the following: 

1. sudo mkdir -p /mnt/mount-iso
2. sudo mount -o loop /dev/sda1 /mnt/mount-iso
3. sudo apt-cdrom -m -d=/mnt/mount-iso add
4. sudo apt update

After entering

sudo apt update

The following messages appeared on the console:

Ign:1 cdrom://[Debian GNU/Linux 12.0.0 _Bookworm_ - Official amd64 DVD Binary-1 
with firmware 20230610-10:23"] bookworm InRelease
Err:2 cdrom://[Debian GNU/Linux 12.0.0 _Bookworm_ - Official amd64 DVD Binary-1 
with firmware 20230610-10:23"] bookworm Release
Please use apt-cdrom to make this CD-ROM recognized by APT. apt-get update 
cannot be used to add new CD-ROMs.
Reading package lists.Done

E: The repository 'cdrom://[Debian GNU/Linux 12.0.0 _Bookworm_ - Official amd64 
DVD Binary-1 with firmware 20230610-10:23"] bookworm Release' does not have a 
Release file.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore 
disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration 
details.

I have read the manpages of both 'apt-cdrom' and 'apt-secure' and they only 
contain lists and descriptions of options and parameters. They do not contain 
examples on how to use the options.

My objective is to mount the flash drive as a CD-ROM and use it to install 
additional software. 

Karl

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Re: ADD?REMOVE SOFTWARE

[Dan Ritter]

Brad McDonald wrote: 
> IS there any way to make multiple selections of a file,it's dependencies
> and dependant packages rather than one by one as that is very slow.For
> example 3 nights ago I installed all the "electrical" by first the named
> folder then the dependencies then the dependant packages.The following 2
> nights I had as much to put in again.I would like to select everything at
> once with their dependencies


Assuming you're using Debian and haven't done anything odd, 

sudo apt install PACKAGE

will install PACKAGE and all the dependencies.

If you put a list of PACKAGE-A PACKAGE-B PACKAGE-C on the same
command line, all of those packages and all dependencies will be
installed.

-dsr-

Re: ADD?REMOVE SOFTWARE

[err404]

On 6/12/23 20:44, Brad McDonald wrote:

IS there any way to make multiple selections of a file,it's dependencies and dependant 
packages rather than one by one as that is very slow.For example 3 nights ago I installed 
all the "electrical" by first the named folder then the dependencies then the 
dependant packages.The following 2 nights I had as much to put in again.I would like to 
select everything at once with their dependencies


Hello Brad
you can use aptitude (ncurse interface) or synaptic (graphical interface)

if aptitude is not already installed on your computer, you can install it by 
`apt install aptitude`
if synaptic is not already installed on your computer, you can install it by 
`apt install synaptic`

ADD?REMOVE SOFTWARE

[Brad McDonald]

IS there any way to make multiple selections of a file,it's dependencies
and dependant packages rather than one by one as that is very slow.For
example 3 nights ago I installed all the "electrical" by first the named
folder then the dependencies then the dependant packages.The following 2
nights I had as much to put in again.I would like to select everything at
once with their dependencies

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[Yassine Chaouche]

Le 4/5/23 à 17:19, Yvan Masson a écrit :

Hi list,

As the subject says, I am looking for a KDE or desktop agnostic software to 
batch resize pictures.


You can try the imgp + nnn combo.
You get speed as a bonus,
but it misses some of your requirements
(like french translation and possibly the GUI if nnn isn't enough)
Best,

--
yassine -- sysadm
+213-779 06 06 23
http://about.me/ychaouche
Looking for side gigs.

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[Yvan Masson]

Le 05/04/2023 à 20:37, didier gaumet a écrit :

Hello,

I do not use image editing/modifying tools, so I cannot say if these 
solutions are good in your usecase, but there are at least three tools 
packaged in Debian:

- Converseen (GUI batch tool: conversion, resizing, etc...)
https://www.makeuseof.com/batch-convert-resize-images-linux-using-converseen/
- FotoXX (GUI frontend to Imagemagick)
- even Gthumb seems to be able to do this:
https://www.maketecheasier.com/batch-resize-images-gthumb/



Thanks Didier and everybody who answered!

I think for my use case, Gthumb seems to be the best tradeoff, but I 
will keep all your suggestions somewhere.


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[didier gaumet]

Hello,

I do not use image editing/modifying tools, so I cannot say if these 
solutions are good in your usecase, but there are at least three tools 
packaged in Debian:

- Converseen (GUI batch tool: conversion, resizing, etc...)
https://www.makeuseof.com/batch-convert-resize-images-linux-using-converseen/
- FotoXX (GUI frontend to Imagemagick)
- even Gthumb seems to be able to do this:
https://www.maketecheasier.com/batch-resize-images-gthumb/

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[zithro]

On 05 Apr 2023 18:19, Yvan Masson wrote:

Hi list,

As the subject says, I am looking for a KDE or desktop agnostic 
software to batch resize pictures.


Requirements:
- libre
- offline
- being usable without command line
- translated in French
- with a very simple user interface
- possibility to either overwrite source image or to create a new file
- written in Rust (/!\ that is a joke :-D)

Bonus:
- included in Debian
- possibility to remove EXIF data

Here are software I have found but excluded:
- nautilus extension `nautilus-image-converter`: specific to nautilus
- converseen: untranslated, quite difficult to use
- KDE service menu ReImage: untranslated, but could be done (code 
unfortunately not available in Github/Gitlab or equivalent)


Regards,
Yvan


Hi Ivan,

XnView MP or XnConvert ?
It's a freeware but NOT open source. It's in french (iirc the dev is 
french).

There's no Debian pkg, but a deb file can be downloaded.
https://www.xnview.com/en/apps/

PS: I use it since "decades" w/o problems (but on Windows, ymmv)

++
zithro

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[Emanuel Berg]

Michel Verdier wrote:

>> Requirements:
>> - libre
>> - offline
>> - being usable without command line
>
> Without command line you need a gui and it is hard to
> batch resize.

Requirements:
- firefight
- without guns

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[Nicolas George]

Yvan Masson (12023-04-05):
> As the subject says, I am looking for a KDE or desktop agnostic software to
> batch resize pictures.

As other have said, ImageMagick.

> 
> Requirements:
> - libre
> - offline
> - being usable without command line

Easy: use your favorite IDE, edit your script, run it. No command-line
involved.


Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[Michel Verdier]

Le 5 avril 2023 Yvan Masson a écrit :

> Requirements:
> - libre
> - offline
> - being usable without command line

Without command line you need a gui and it is hard to batch resize. Gimp
is easy for resizing but not for exif. Digikam is good on exif and other
metadata.

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 06:19:56PM +0200, Yvan Masson wrote:
> Requirements:
> - being usable without command line

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 06:40:29PM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> First stop these issues are always ImageMagick, including this
> case as it happens - here are a bunch of commands to get you
> started
> 
>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/conf/.zsh/gfx
> 
> and more
> 
>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/conf/.zsh/gfx-resize

Since you want it to be used "without command line", the obvious thing
to do is to write a Tcl/Tk or other GUI wrapper that puts a non-command
user interface in front of the imagemagick commands.

So, step 1: figure out what imagemagick commands are needed to do the job,
and step 2: write the GUI for your target end user experience.

If you don't like Tcl/Tk, there's Python/Tkinter, or Perl-GTK, or other
programming language and graphical toolkit choices.

Re: Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[Emanuel Berg]

Yvan Masson wrote:

> As the subject says, I am looking for a KDE or desktop
> agnostic software to batch resize pictures.

First stop these issues are always ImageMagick, including this
case as it happens - here are a bunch of commands to get you
started

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/conf/.zsh/gfx

and more

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/conf/.zsh/gfx-resize

HIH

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Looking to a KDE or desktop agnostic software to batch resize pictures

[Yvan Masson]

Hi list,

As the subject says, I am looking for a KDE or desktop agnostic software 
to batch resize pictures.


Requirements:
- libre
- offline
- being usable without command line
- translated in French
- with a very simple user interface
- possibility to either overwrite source image or to create a new file
- written in Rust (/!\ that is a joke :-D)

Bonus:
- included in Debian
- possibility to remove EXIF data

Here are software I have found but excluded:
- nautilus extension `nautilus-image-converter`: specific to nautilus
- converseen: untranslated, quite difficult to use
- KDE service menu ReImage: untranslated, but could be done (code 
unfortunately not available in Github/Gitlab or equivalent)


Regards,
Yvan


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Software usage.

[peter]

In-reply-to: 
References:  
  
 


From: David Wright 
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:48:14 -0600

Yes, perhaps suggest this change to the editors:

  "Alternatively, you can send an email to one of the following 
addresses:


  "Web pages editors
  package: www.debian.org
  debian-...@lists.debian.org"


Sent a message February 18.  No acknowledgement.  No evidence of the
suggested change.

 ... P.

Festival Latino-americano de Instalação de Software Livre em BH - 15 de abril

[Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana]

Olá,

Estão abertas as inscrições para o FLISoL 2023 – Festival 
Latino-americano de Instalação de Software Livre [1], que acontecerá no 
dia 15 de abril (sábado) das 9h às 14h, de forma presencial e gratuita, 
nas salas salas 2077 e 2013 do prédio do ICEx (Instituto de Ciências 
Exatas) [2], Campus Pampulha da UFMG.


[1] http://bh.flisol.org.br
[2] https://www.icex.ufmg.br

O FLISoL é um evento totalmente gratuito que acontece desde 2005. Ele 
tem como objetivo promover o uso de Software Livre e a integração de 
comunidades de usuários em todos os países da América Latina. Todo ano 
são realizados, simultaneamente, eventos em cidades diferentes em que 
serão feitas instalações de maneira gratuita e totalmente legal de 
Software Livre nos computadores das pessoas interessadas.


O evento, conhecido como install fest, consiste em um grande encontro de 
pessoas com conhecimento em Software Livre e outras que tem interesse em 
conhecer mais sobre o assunto. Os(As) visitantes poderão levar seus 
computadores/notebooks para que os(as) voluntários(as) ajudem a instalar 
gratuitamente Software Livre. Em paralelo, são promovidas palestras e 
oficinas sobre Software Livre.


Entre os softwares que são instalados, estão distribuições de GNU/Linux 
como Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Arch, assim como programas livres, 
inclusive para Microsoft Windows e MacOS, como LibreOffice, Gimp, 
Inkscape, Firefox, Blender e jogos.


Em Belo Horizonte, a organização para o FLISoL 2023 está sendo realizada 
pelas Comunidades Debian-MG [3] e Debian Brasil [4], pelo Departamento 
de Ciência da Computação (DCC) [5] da UFMG, pelo DACompSI, e por pessoas 
da comunidade de Software Livre de Belo Horizonte e região.


[3] https://debian-minas-gerais.gitlab.io/site
[4] https://debianbrasil.org.br
[5] https://dcc.ufmg.br

Até o dia 1 de abril a organização do FLISoL em Belo Horizonte estará 
recebendo propostas de palestras. Se você gostaria de contribuir com o 
evento falando sobre um tema relacionado a Software Livre, Código 
Aberto, Linux, linguagens de programação, etc, não deixe de enviar a sua 
proposta.


Para mais informações sobre como se inscrever e/ou enviar uma proposta 
de palestras acesse:

http://bh.flisol.org.br

Abraços,

--
Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls)
Belo Horizonte - Brasil
Debian Developer
Site: http://phls.com.br
GPG ID: 0443C450


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Don't feed the troll [was: FSF is not really free software (?)]

[tomas]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:11:45AM -0500, Jeremy Hendricks wrote:
> I’d recommend contacting FSF for FSF questions, not Debian.

And I'd recommend against feeding trolls.

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: FSF is not really free software (?)

[Jeremy Hendricks]

I’d recommend contacting FSF for FSF questions, not Debian.

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 7:08 AM philip pocock 
wrote:

> "While many groups and individuals have contributed to Linux, the largest
> single contributor is still the Free Software Foundation, which created not
> only most of the tools used in Linux, but also the philosophy and the
> community that made Linux possible."
> -- https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/ch01s02.en.html
>
> Is there a link to the FSF contributions? I am told that FSF is centered
> on promoting proprietary software packages and assuring million $ salaries
> for Mozilla top execs for example. And therefore FSF is a capitalist
> utility above all.
>
> Stallman seems desperate for attention as it was Europe not the USA that
> birthed Linux into our online world. It bothers me to read praise of
> FSFwhen it is not praiseworthy unless one reveres money over all.
>
>
> --
> prof philip pocock
>
>
>

FSF is not really free software (?)

[philip pocock]

"While many groups and individuals have contributed to Linux, the largest
single contributor is still the Free Software Foundation, which created not
only most of the tools used in Linux, but also the philosophy and the
community that made Linux possible."
-- https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/ch01s02.en.html

Is there a link to the FSF contributions? I am told that FSF is centered on
promoting proprietary software packages and assuring million $ salaries for
Mozilla top execs for example. And therefore FSF is a capitalist utility
above all.

Stallman seems desperate for attention as it was Europe not the USA that
birthed Linux into our online world. It bothers me to read praise of
FSFwhen it is not praiseworthy unless one reveres money over all.

-- 
prof philip pocock

Re: Software usage. Was Re: Debian release criteria.

[David Wright]

On Sat 21 Jan 2023 at 08:20:00 (-0800), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> From: 
> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:09:20 +0100
> > Know what? Those "resources" to be "allocated" are you and me. 
> 
> Documentation?  The Web?  Most of the front page, 
> https://www.debian.org , is occupied with graphics. =8~/  A link 
> directly to https://wiki.debian.org would make sense.  "User support" 
> is OK but a link directly to wiki.debian.org can easily fit.

Yes, perhaps suggest this change to the editors:

  "Alternatively, you can send an email to one of the following addresses:

  "Web pages editors
  package: www.debian.org
  debian-...@lists.debian.org"

(quoting from https://www.debian.org/contact)

Cheers,
David.

Software usage. Was Re: Debian release criteria.

[peter]

From: 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:09:20 +0100
> Know what? Those "resources" to be "allocated" are you and me. 

Documentation?  The Web?  Most of the front page, 
https://www.debian.org , is occupied with graphics. =8~/  A link 
directly to https://wiki.debian.org would make sense.  "User support" 
is OK but a link directly to wiki.debian.org can easily fit.

TTFN,  ... P.



- 
mobile: +1 778 951 5147
  VoIP: +1 604 670 0140
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:PeterEasthope

Re: Q. re "Software" on new 11.6 Install

[didier gaumet]

Le mercredi 28 décembre 2022 à 09:05 -0600, Kent West a écrit :
[...]
> I found "Synaptic", which seems to be what I thought "Software" was
> going to be. Perhaps "Synaptic" is Debian-specific, whereas
> "Software" is Cinnamon-specific. Maybe?
[...]

I would say that Synaptic or Gnome-packagekit are GUI package managers 
that, on debian and its derivatives use the apt libraries, but are 
indeed not dependant of a particular underlying package management 
ecosystem. Synaptic is not part of a DE, Gnome-software is part ot the 
Gnome project.
In my mind you employ such tools when you think of packets (not apps) 
and how to manage them whith a GUI.


Conversely you could think of Software (Gnome-software in fact, and I 
think there is an equivalent in the KDE desktop), not as a GUI package 
manager for administrators, but as an application center or application 
store, for privileged end-users who barely, if at all, know what a 
package is. It's more a scenario a la Android/Ios/Windows/MacOS app 
store. It's troubling for experienced linux users used to install 
packets but much more user friendly for a non-technician user who 
searches for an application name or description, browse the results, 
read the descriptions, watch the screenshots and install the chosen app.

Re: Q. re "Software" on new 11.6 Install

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 09:05:18AM -0600, Kent West wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 8:58 AM Kent West  wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 8:33 AM Kent West  wrote:
> >
> >> I just installed 11.6 (Bullseye) on a VM. Before I start using it for its
> >> intended purpose, I thought I'd take the opportunity to experience a new
> >> install as a new user, just to see what they might experience.
> >>
> >> When given the choice of what software to install, I unselected Gnome and
> >> selected Cinnamon, and left the others at their defaults (blank except for
> >> first (desktop) and last (standard tools) options).
> >>
> >> When I booted into Cinnamon, I found the "Software" GUI. I can run
> >> "Aptitude" all day long, but the GUIs I've tended to leave alone.
> >>

I wonder if you also unselected Debian desktop when you unselected Gnome -
that might also pull in some Gnome software if you did not.

> >> So here's my question. When in this "Software" GUI, I hit the search
> >> "magnifying glass" icon in the upper-left corner, and searched for "rust",
> >> expecting to find Rust-programming-related items. It only found the one
> >> item of "Process Viewer". Even after I enabled "contrib" and "non-free"
> >> (didn't think that'd make a difference, but thought I'd try). Are these GUI
> >> front-ends for "apt" that broken? Or just this one? Or am I doing something
> >> wrong?

Software is the generic GNOME GUI app for installing software. It may or
may not work on the granularity of Debian packages.

> >>
> >> Just curious; I can always use "aptitude" to do what I want, but if I was
> >> a newbie trying to use this GUI to install "rustc", I'd be at a loss.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >
> > The Search feature does not even find "aptitude". I'm beginning to think
> > this "Software" GUI is something other than a front-end to "apt".
> >
> >
> I found "Synaptic", which seems to be what I thought "Software" was going
> to be. Perhaps "Synaptic" is Debian-specific, whereas "Software" is
> Cinnamon-specific. Maybe?
> 

Synaptic came from somewhere else originally - maybe Ubuntu?? it was a long
time ago, I think. If you can use apt / aptitude / apt-cache search / apt-cache 
show on a command line or in a terminal, they are likely to give you more
information. As ever, your mileage may vary and there's more than one way
to do it :)

All the very best, as ever, 

Andy Cater

> 
> -- 
> Kent West<")))><
> IT Support / Client Support
> Abilene Christian University
> Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

Re: Q. re "Software" on new 11.6 Install

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2022 28 Dec 09:07 -0600, Kent West wrote:
> I found "Synaptic", which seems to be what I thought "Software" was going
> to be. Perhaps "Synaptic" is Debian-specific, whereas "Software" is
> Cinnamon-specific. Maybe?

Actually, I think "Software" comes from the Gnome Project.  Make of that
what you will.  I use the Gnome desktop but not "Software".  Like you I
found completely inadequate to my needs but it's installed anyway.

I use the Aptitude TUI and apt from the terminal when I don't need the
TUI.  I do a lot in the terminal so it's not a pain point for me.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Q. re "Software" on new 11.6 Install

[Kent West]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 8:58 AM Kent West  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 8:33 AM Kent West  wrote:
>
>> I just installed 11.6 (Bullseye) on a VM. Before I start using it for its
>> intended purpose, I thought I'd take the opportunity to experience a new
>> install as a new user, just to see what they might experience.
>>
>> When given the choice of what software to install, I unselected Gnome and
>> selected Cinnamon, and left the others at their defaults (blank except for
>> first (desktop) and last (standard tools) options).
>>
>> When I booted into Cinnamon, I found the "Software" GUI. I can run
>> "Aptitude" all day long, but the GUIs I've tended to leave alone.
>>
>> So here's my question. When in this "Software" GUI, I hit the search
>> "magnifying glass" icon in the upper-left corner, and searched for "rust",
>> expecting to find Rust-programming-related items. It only found the one
>> item of "Process Viewer". Even after I enabled "contrib" and "non-free"
>> (didn't think that'd make a difference, but thought I'd try). Are these GUI
>> front-ends for "apt" that broken? Or just this one? Or am I doing something
>> wrong?
>>
>> Just curious; I can always use "aptitude" to do what I want, but if I was
>> a newbie trying to use this GUI to install "rustc", I'd be at a loss.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> The Search feature does not even find "aptitude". I'm beginning to think
> this "Software" GUI is something other than a front-end to "apt".
>
>
I found "Synaptic", which seems to be what I thought "Software" was going
to be. Perhaps "Synaptic" is Debian-specific, whereas "Software" is
Cinnamon-specific. Maybe?


-- 
Kent West<")))><
IT Support / Client Support
Abilene Christian University
Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

Re: Q. re "Software" on new 11.6 Install

[Kent West]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 8:33 AM Kent West  wrote:

> I just installed 11.6 (Bullseye) on a VM. Before I start using it for its
> intended purpose, I thought I'd take the opportunity to experience a new
> install as a new user, just to see what they might experience.
>
> When given the choice of what software to install, I unselected Gnome and
> selected Cinnamon, and left the others at their defaults (blank except for
> first (desktop) and last (standard tools) options).
>
> When I booted into Cinnamon, I found the "Software" GUI. I can run
> "Aptitude" all day long, but the GUIs I've tended to leave alone.
>
> So here's my question. When in this "Software" GUI, I hit the search
> "magnifying glass" icon in the upper-left corner, and searched for "rust",
> expecting to find Rust-programming-related items. It only found the one
> item of "Process Viewer". Even after I enabled "contrib" and "non-free"
> (didn't think that'd make a difference, but thought I'd try). Are these GUI
> front-ends for "apt" that broken? Or just this one? Or am I doing something
> wrong?
>
> Just curious; I can always use "aptitude" to do what I want, but if I was
> a newbie trying to use this GUI to install "rustc", I'd be at a loss.
>
> Thanks!
> <http://kentwest.blogspot.com>
>

The Search feature does not even find "aptitude". I'm beginning to think
this "Software" GUI is something other than a front-end to "apt".

-- 
Kent West<")))><
IT Support / Client Support
Abilene Christian University
Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

Q. re "Software" on new 11.6 Install

[Kent West]

I just installed 11.6 (Bullseye) on a VM. Before I start using it for its
intended purpose, I thought I'd take the opportunity to experience a new
install as a new user, just to see what they might experience.

When given the choice of what software to install, I unselected Gnome and
selected Cinnamon, and left the others at their defaults (blank except for
first (desktop) and last (standard tools) options).

When I booted into Cinnamon, I found the "Software" GUI. I can run
"Aptitude" all day long, but the GUIs I've tended to leave alone.

So here's my question. When in this "Software" GUI, I hit the search
"magnifying glass" icon in the upper-left corner, and searched for "rust",
expecting to find Rust-programming-related items. It only found the one
item of "Process Viewer". Even after I enabled "contrib" and "non-free"
(didn't think that'd make a difference, but thought I'd try). Are these GUI
front-ends for "apt" that broken? Or just this one? Or am I doing something
wrong?

Just curious; I can always use "aptitude" to do what I want, but if I was a
newbie trying to use this GUI to install "rustc", I'd be at a loss.

Thanks!

-- 
Kent West<")))><
IT Support / Client Support
Abilene Christian University
Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

Re: Gnome Software (Logiciels) et les mises à jour non-désirées

[didier gaumet]

Le dimanche 18 décembre 2022 à 21:43 +0100, Jean-Marc a écrit :
> 
> Mon ordi est multi-users.  Ce qui signifie que je devrai mettre cette
> valeur a faux pour tout les utilisateurs.

Je peux me tromper parce que je ne connais vraiment pas bien tout ça
mais ces variables me semble faire partie de l'écosystème dconf (j'ai
jeté un oeil par dconf-editor) et après consultation de la page man
(man -S7 dconf), j'ai l'impression que par défaut cette valeur n'est
affectée qu'à la variable du profil (de l'utilisateur)

tu posais aussi la question de savoir comment emêcher le lancement en
arrière plan de gnome-software lors de la session gnome avec des
autostart. Tout ce que je peux dire c'est qu'il y a un scope systemd
pour Gnome Software dans la session utilisateur:

didier@hp-notebook14:~$ systemctl --user | grep -i software
  app-gnome-org.gnome.Software-12952.scope 
 
> Mais si un utilisateur veut installer un paquet via flatpak ou snap, 
> déactiver les mises à jour peut aussi être problématique.
> 
> Ma question porte plus sur les permissions accordées aux
> utilisateurs.
> 
> Je ne comprends pas comment un non-admin peut déclencher un upgrade.
> 
> J'aimerai aussi trouver le log du déclenchement.  Quel utilisateur a 
> demandé cette mise à jour.

tu peux peut-être voir ça avec gpk-log (j'ai jamais utilisé)

Voilà, désolé, je ne vais pas pourvoir t'en dire plus ou plus opportun,
je ne maîtrise pas le sujet :-)

Re: Gnome Software (Logiciels) et les mises à jour non-désirées

[Jean-Marc]

Le 18/12/22 à 17:11, didier gaumet a écrit :

Le dimanche 18 décembre 2022 à 12:01 +0100, Jean-Marc a écrit :

[...]

org.gnome.software allow-updates true[

[...]

key name="allow-updates" type="b">
    true
    Whether to manage updates and upgrades in GNOME
Software
    If disabled, GNOME Software will hide the updates
panel,
not perform any automatic updates actions or prompt for
upgrades.

[...]

Bonjour,

(à moins que je n'aie pas compris) vu que tu gères les mises-à-jour à
la main pourquoi simplement ne pas positionner org.gnome.software
allow-updates à false?
Le problème est à mon sens le même en Debian Stable et bureau Gnome
(par défaut) lorsque les mises-à-jour automatiques sont faites avec
unattended-upgrades


Mon ordi est multi-users.  Ce qui signifie que je devrai mettre cette 
valeur a faux pour tout les utilisateurs.


Mais si un utilisateur veut installer un paquet via flatpak ou snap, 
déactiver les mises à jour peut aussi être problématique.


Ma question porte plus sur les permissions accordées aux utilisateurs.

Je ne comprends pas comment un non-admin peut déclencher un upgrade.

J'aimerai aussi trouver le log du déclenchement.  Quel utilisateur a 
demandé cette mise à jour.


--
Jean-Marc


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Gnome Software (Logiciels) et les mises à jour non-désirées

[didier gaumet]

Le dimanche 18 décembre 2022 à 12:01 +0100, Jean-Marc a écrit :

[...]
> org.gnome.software allow-updates true[
[...]
> key name="allow-updates" type="b">
>    true
>    Whether to manage updates and upgrades in GNOME 
> Software
>    If disabled, GNOME Software will hide the updates
> panel, 
> not perform any automatic updates actions or prompt for 
> upgrades.
[...]

Bonjour,

(à moins que je n'aie pas compris) vu que tu gères les mises-à-jour à
la main pourquoi simplement ne pas positionner org.gnome.software
allow-updates à false? 
Le problème est à mon sens le même en Debian Stable et bureau Gnome
(par défaut) lorsque les mises-à-jour automatiques sont faites avec
unattended-upgrades

Gnome Software (Logiciels) et les mises à jour non-désirées

[Jean-Marc]

salut à toute et à tous,

Mercredi 14 décembre dernier, vers 20h17, j'allume mon ordi (Debian sid 
+ bureau Gnome 43) et, pendant la séquence de démarrage, je vois une 
barre de progrès avec le message "Mises à jour en cours".


Quelques instants plus tard, je me rends compte que Firefox ne démarre 
plus.  Normal, la version 108 est buguée ([1]).


Et c'est Packagekit qui s'est chargé de mettre à jour mon système.


Comme je ne trouve pas normal de faire des mises à jour sans tenir 
compte de ce que dit apt-listbugs ([2]), j'ouvre un rapport de bug pour 
le paquet pakagekit ([3]), rapport rapidement clôturé puisque packagekit 
ne sert que de back-end à gnome-software.



Bon, en gros, pour résumer ce qu'il se passe, quand on démarre une 
session Gnome, gnome-software (appelé aussi Logiciels) démarre 
automatiquement en arrière plan (cf. [4]) et s'occupe des mises à jour 
du système.



Ce comportement est réglé par les paramètres suivants :
org.gnome.software download-updates false
org.gnome.software download-updates-notify false
org.gnome.software allow-updates true


Le fichier xml org.gnome.software.gschema.xml donne un peu plus d'info 
sur ces paramètres ([]).



  true
  Whether to manage updates and upgrades in GNOME 
Software
  If disabled, GNOME Software will hide the updates panel, 
not perform any automatic updates actions or prompt for 
upgrades.



  true
  Automatically download and install updates
  If enabled, GNOME Software automatically downloads 
software updates in the background, also installing ones that do not 
require a reboot.



  true
  Notify the user about software updated in the 
background
  If enabled, GNOME Software notifies the user about 
updates that happened whilst the user was idle.



À la fermeture de la session ou quand vous éteignez l'ordi, la boîte de 
dialogue indique qu'il y a des mises à jour et vous demande si vous 
voulez les faire, la valeur par défaut étant «Je veux les faire».  Ces 
mises à jour seront donc effectuées lors de la prochaine séquence de 
démarrage.


Selon le rapport de bug de packagekit, la solution la plus simple 
consiste à «masker» le service qui fait ces mises à jour au boot :


sudo systemctl mask packgekit-offline-update.service

Reste des choses que je ne comprends pas.

1) Les valeurs download-updates et download-updates-notify sont à "faux" 
pour moi et suis le seul utilisateur «admin» de l'ordi.  Est-ce possible 
pour un utilisateur non-admin de faire des mises à jour par ce biais ? 
packagekit est censé offrir un contrôle des permissions fines via 
policykit.  Si quelqu'un a de la doc sur packagekit/policikit, je suis 
preneur.


2) j'ai essayé de bloqué le démarrage de gnome-software mais un fichier 
org.gnome.Software.desktop dans ~/.config/autostart avec une entrée 
Hidden=true ne donne rien ; pareil si je renomme le fichier 
/etc/xdg/autostart/org.gnome.Software.desktop.  gnome-software démarre 
invariablement en arrière-plan.  Si vous avec une explication, je suis 
preneur.



Bon, je pense que je vais à tout le moins masker le service 
packgekit-offline-update.service pour éviter les mises à jour en arrière 
plan tant que je n'aurai pas d'explications plus clair de comment 
contrôler cela.


Pour les courageux qui auraient un peu de temps, merci d'avance pour 
votre aide.


Bon dimanche et bonne fin d'année à toutes et à tous.

--
Jean-Marc

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026072

[2] https://packages.debian.org/sid/apt-listbugs

[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026113

[4] commande : systemctl --user status
/usr/bin/gnome-software --gapplication-service



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Re: howto install Debian on software RAID1 when UEFI?

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

Hi hw,

Having followed through the steps I outlined:

> I'm about to try this on a VM with two disks. I'm going to initially partition
> as if I were using LVM and all in one partition on one disk, then on the other

> That should give me identically sized partitions.

> At that point, I'll change the type on the LVM partitions to RAID, and use
> use the RAID partitioner to make a RAID1 device.

> At that point, I'll change the type on the LVM partitions to RAID, and use
> use the RAID partitioner to make a RAID1 device.

> After that, I'll use one of the ESP partitons and tell the partitioner
> to install all in one partition on the RAID device.

> I'll then change the type of the partition installed to btrfs.

> That should give me EFI - RAID - swap on each of two disks.
> The RAID should be RAID1 and will be mounted as /

This all worked.

I then rebooted into rescue mode, typed in the root password and typed 

update-grub /dev/sdb

which appeared to work fine.

Hope this helps, with every good wish as ever,

Andy Cater

Re: howto install Debian on software RAID1 when UEFI?

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 05:29:17PM +0100, hw wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-11-13 at 14:32 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 02:49:28PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > the Debian installer is horrible.  It won't let me install on software 
> > > RAID1
> > > on
> > > a server with an UEFI BIOS.  I can't find any good guide about that, 
> > > either.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi hw
> > 
> > You might want to *start* with using the expert install - found under the 
> > advanced menu option. That will give you more control, including advanced
> > partitioning.
> 
> That's where I kept ending up.  I didn't want that, it needs to be easy to
> install on software RAID.  Not everyone has hardware RAID to boot from.
> 

And that's why I suggested the advanced partitioning. I only have software
RAID - as do most people now.

I'm about to try this on a VM with two disks. I'm going to initially partition
as if I were using LVM and all in one partition on one disk, then on the other.
That should give me identically sized partitions.

At that point, I'll change the type on the LVM partitions to RAID, and use
use the RAID partitioner to make a RAID1 device.

After that, I'll use one of the ESP partitons and tell the partitioner
to install all in one partition on the RAID device.

[I'm fairly sure Fedora also installs LVM by default as it makes it a lot
easier to resize partitions if necessary when adding more storage.]
I'll then change the type of the partition installed to btrfs.

That should give me EFI - RAID - swap on each of two disks.
The RAID should be RAID1 and will be mounted as /

> > > I want root on brtfs with RAID1.  How do I get Debian installed?
> > 
> > I'd suggest that you partition one disk with "all files in one partition"
> > as a test run to see the sizes you'll need and then rerun the partitioner.
> 
> Yeah that failed.  The installer was unable to install grub, then it was 
> unable
> to mount /boot/efi ...  It's not working right at all.
> 

Let me run through the process: I'm reformatting a spare machine so that its
running Stable then I'll run through in a KVM/QEMU machine with virt-manager.

> > > From memory, I think you end up with something like an EFI partition of
> > > 512M,
> > a root partition of (the rest - 1G) and then a 1G swap.
> > 
> > If you partition both disks to have an EFI partition at the beginning, then
> > a RAID partition, then 2 x 1G swap at the end.
> 
> Yeah that's what I tried.
> 
> > Then use the RAID manager to set up RAID1 and LVM over the top.
> 
> There's no way that I would use LVM.  That's yet another layer of complexitiy
> with no advantages whatsoever and a nightmare to deal with.  I used it once 
> and
> I'll never do that again.
> 
> >  I'm unsure how
> > you would install GRUB to the second disk of the RAID - it might be that 
> > you'd
> > need to restart once the install is complete, use the rescue option and
> > specifically install GRUB on the second disk of the RAID.
> 
> It used to be possible to just install it on the other disk.  But I didn't get
> that far.
> 
> After over half a day and some reboots, I finally got it to install on a 
> single
> disk without any redundancy.  I'll have to partition the 2nd disk later after 
> I
> figured out how to add another IPv6 address to one of the interfaces --- easy
> with network manager on Fedora (which also installs on software RAID),
> impossible with Debian.
> 
> I won't be able to boot when the disk I installed on failed.  In this case, it
> doesn't matter too much, but if that was a remote server there would be no way
> to get it installed without hardware RAID.
> 
> Debian really needs to work a lot on the installer.  It used to be easy to
> install Debian, but now it's a nightmare.
> 
> > > 
> > > The graphical version crashes with a kernel panic when booting from an USB
> > > stick, so I need to use the normal installer.
> > 
> > Then you have wider problems than just installation, perhaps?
> > 
> 
> No, why would you say that.
> 

If you can't boot the graphical installer but you can boot the text
installer, there's something wrong somewhere. How did you write the USB
stick and did you test the integrity of the media?

> > > There's even not a way to select RAID1 for btrfs.  What an anachronism ...
> > > 
> > 
> > You do know that this is a general purpose installer that covers 12 or so
> > filesystem types and allows for flexibility?
> 
> Fedoras installer does a better much job.  I didn't want endless flexibility 
> but
> a simpl

Re: howto install Debian on software RAID1 when UEFI?

[hw]

On Sun, 2022-11-13 at 14:32 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 02:49:28PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > the Debian installer is horrible.  It won't let me install on software RAID1
> > on
> > a server with an UEFI BIOS.  I can't find any good guide about that, either.
> > 
> 
> Hi hw
> 
> You might want to *start* with using the expert install - found under the 
> advanced menu option. That will give you more control, including advanced
> partitioning.

That's where I kept ending up.  I didn't want that, it needs to be easy to
install on software RAID.  Not everyone has hardware RAID to boot from.

> > I want root on brtfs with RAID1.  How do I get Debian installed?
> 
> I'd suggest that you partition one disk with "all files in one partition"
> as a test run to see the sizes you'll need and then rerun the partitioner.

Yeah that failed.  The installer was unable to install grub, then it was unable
to mount /boot/efi ...  It's not working right at all.

> > From memory, I think you end up with something like an EFI partition of
> > 512M,
> a root partition of (the rest - 1G) and then a 1G swap.
> 
> If you partition both disks to have an EFI partition at the beginning, then
> a RAID partition, then 2 x 1G swap at the end.

Yeah that's what I tried.

> Then use the RAID manager to set up RAID1 and LVM over the top.

There's no way that I would use LVM.  That's yet another layer of complexitiy
with no advantages whatsoever and a nightmare to deal with.  I used it once and
I'll never do that again.

>  I'm unsure how
> you would install GRUB to the second disk of the RAID - it might be that you'd
> need to restart once the install is complete, use the rescue option and
> specifically install GRUB on the second disk of the RAID.

It used to be possible to just install it on the other disk.  But I didn't get
that far.

After over half a day and some reboots, I finally got it to install on a single
disk without any redundancy.  I'll have to partition the 2nd disk later after I
figured out how to add another IPv6 address to one of the interfaces --- easy
with network manager on Fedora (which also installs on software RAID),
impossible with Debian.

I won't be able to boot when the disk I installed on failed.  In this case, it
doesn't matter too much, but if that was a remote server there would be no way
to get it installed without hardware RAID.

Debian really needs to work a lot on the installer.  It used to be easy to
install Debian, but now it's a nightmare.

> > 
> > The graphical version crashes with a kernel panic when booting from an USB
> > stick, so I need to use the normal installer.
> 
> Then you have wider problems than just installation, perhaps?
> 

No, why would you say that.

> > There's even not a way to select RAID1 for btrfs.  What an anachronism ...
> > 
> 
> You do know that this is a general purpose installer that covers 12 or so
> filesystem types and allows for flexibility?

Fedoras installer does a better much job.  I didn't want endless flexibility but
a simple standard installation on software RAID.  That used to be easy with
Debian.

> With every good wish, as ever,
> 
> Andy Cater 
> 

Re: howto install Debian on software RAID1 when UEFI?

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 02:32:06PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> If you partition both disks to have an EFI partition at the beginning, then
> a RAID partition, then 2 x 1G swap at the end.
> 
> Then use the RAID manager to set up RAID1 and LVM over the top. I'm unsure how
> you would install GRUB to the second disk of the RAID - it might be that you'd
> need to restart once the install is complete, use the rescue option and
> specifically install GRUB on the second disk of the RAID.

Do note that OP has not made clear whether they want btrfs on top of MD
RAID-1, or btrfs with its own "raid1" data profile (which is not at all
the same as MD RAID-1 and isn't installed the same way).

I'm not sure whether you can set up multi-device btrfs in the installer,
though if you can't it would be easy to just install to one device, add
the second device afterwards and then do a balance to split the data
equally.

Also OP should note that whichever way you go, the EFI System Partition
technically can't go in any form of software RAID, so at the moment you
have to have two of them and manage them individually somehow:

"Redundancy for EFI System Partition: what do people do in 2020?"
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/11/msg00455.html

(same answers now in 2022)

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: howto install Debian on software RAID1 when UEFI?

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 02:49:28PM +0100, hw wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the Debian installer is horrible.  It won't let me install on software RAID1 
> on
> a server with an UEFI BIOS.  I can't find any good guide about that, either.
> 

Hi hw

You might want to *start* with using the expert install - found under the 
advanced menu option. That will give you more control, including advanced
partitioning.

> I want root on brtfs with RAID1.  How do I get Debian installed?

I'd suggest that you partition one disk with "all files in one partition"
as a test run to see the sizes you'll need and then rerun the partitioner.

>From memory, I think you end up with something like an EFI partition of 512M,
a root partition of (the rest - 1G) and then a 1G swap.

If you partition both disks to have an EFI partition at the beginning, then
a RAID partition, then 2 x 1G swap at the end.

Then use the RAID manager to set up RAID1 and LVM over the top. I'm unsure how
you would install GRUB to the second disk of the RAID - it might be that you'd
need to restart once the install is complete, use the rescue option and
specifically install GRUB on the second disk of the RAID.

> 
> The graphical version crashes with a kernel panic when booting from an USB
> stick, so I need to use the normal installer.

Then you have wider problems than just installation, perhaps?

> 
> There's even not a way to select RAID1 for btrfs.  What an anachronism ...
>

You do know that this is a general purpose installer that covers 12 or so
filesystem types and allows for flexibility?

With every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater 

howto install Debian on software RAID1 when UEFI?

[hw]

Hi,

the Debian installer is horrible.  It won't let me install on software RAID1 on
a server with an UEFI BIOS.  I can't find any good guide about that, either.

I want root on brtfs with RAID1.  How do I get Debian installed?

The graphical version crashes with a kernel panic when booting from an USB
stick, so I need to use the normal installer.

There's even not a way to select RAID1 for btrfs.  What an anachronism ...

Re: running outdated software

[Felix Miata]

James H. H. Lampert composed on 2022-10-13 11:12 (UTC-0700):

> DdB wrote:

>> But i am very used to running outdated software, as i am living the old
>> recipe to "never change a working system".

> I've got you beat: I still have a DOS box. And I'm in the process of 
> configuring and loading a replacement for a worn-out DOSbook. And I 
> still run Xerox Ventura Publisher, DOS/GEM Edition, WordPerfect 5.1+, 
> and Quattro on it.

I don't just /have/ "DOS" boxes, I have one running OS/2 virtually 24/7 for the
primary purpose of running Quattro Pro, where all my important personal data 
lives
isolated from the internet, using ATI's proprietary SVGA text 132x43 (800x600)
mode that no newer GPU or OS I have found supports. I boot PC DOS directly on it
on occasion, such as the unusual case of both yesterday and the day before more
than once each.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
based on faith, not based on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata

Re: running outdated software

[DdB]

Am 13.10.2022 um 20:12 schrieb James H. H. Lampert:
> I've got you beat: I still have a DOS box.

Ok, one of my best achievements: Setup an old DOS game (pango.exe),
which had its execution coupled to the system clock of an old 8086. I
found an emulator able to slow its execution on current hardware down.
Only todays OS cannot handle the keybuffer just the way old DOS (2.11)
did and thus it is no longer possible to key in movements in advance
properly. :-( Fun is spoiled anyhow. :-(

Re: running outdated software

[James H. H. Lampert]

On 10/13/22 11:05 AM, DdB wrote:


But i am very used to running outdated software, as i am living the old
recipe to "never change a working system".
I've got you beat: I still have a DOS box. And I'm in the process of 
configuring and loading a replacement for a worn-out DOSbook. And I 
still run Xerox Ventura Publisher, DOS/GEM Edition, WordPerfect 5.1+, 
and Quattro on it.


There's a BBS for this: it's called the Vintage Computer Federation.

--
JHHL

running outdated software (was: crash with wine and nvidia-driver)

[DdB]

Am 13.10.2022 um 18:43 schrieb Hans:
> Hi folks,
> 
> maybe someone got into the same problem as me and can help.

Well, i cannot help. Sorry

But i am very used to running outdated software, as i am living the old
recipe to "never change a working system". The only thing, that i am
doing is to separate different configurations into virtual machines,
where i still am able to run Windows XP (as an example). Intentionally i
am accepting to fall back in time, if the alternatove is to deal with
buggy software or combinations thereof.

Only recently, i discovered, that one of my long-living problems that
had me stay with a 6 year old software combination is no longer present
in a more recent software stack. In order to find out such changes, i
HAVE TO check the functionality of more recent releases from time to
time, which - in order to ensure proper isolation from my main system -
requires a second bootable copy of the main OS.

Long story short: I suggest you create alternatives in order to check
more recent software. Because not only your situation tennds to evolve
into a more and more unique corner case, but also you lose touch to the
cutting edge of developers, who would not be interested to fix past
problems, as there is practically no merit in doing so.

Another example of mine: I did stay with firefox-esr from 2 years ago,
in order of being able to use plugins, that had not yet been transformed
to the new mozilla doctrine. But after some time, i found another
combination of plugins fulfilling my needs just as well as the old ones
did, so i decided to jump to a more recent version of the fox. It is not
such a bright idea to be stubborn and sticking to the older versions,
among ther reasons: because i would have turned onto the only one
(world-wide) using that specific software stack, thus having a unique
fingerprint and killing anonymity...

I suggest not clinging to your specific software combo too frenetically.

But i am sharing your sort of trouble more or less regularly and thus
feel with you.

best of luck, DdB

> As I am not believing, this is related to the game (as ALL games are 
> crashing), I believe, it is related to a systematical error in the 
> relationship between wine and nvidia-driver.

My own experiences with wine were not all that pleasant. Nowadays, i try
to avoid it as best as i can, nuked all the places, where i had
integrated it into my regular system usage.

> (...) 
> So, I hope, someone might got into the same issue, too, and could fix it.
> 
> Any help is welcome.
> 
> Thank you very much!
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Hans

Re: firmware: secure boot dbx with software-center but not apt?

[Steven Timorol]

Steve McIntyre schreef op ma 19-09-2022 om 23:13 [+0100]:
> gnome-software is talking to fwupd, which looks for updates to device
> firmware. DBX is the method used by UEFI firmware to block execution
> of known-bad and known-vulnerable UEFI binaries when running with
> Secure Boot enabled.
> 
> Apt does not know show anything here as the DBX is not a package,
> it's
> a lower-level update to firmware.

thanks for the info

Re: firmware: secure boot dbx with software-center but not apt?

[Steve McIntyre]

Hi Steven!

Steven Timorol  wrote:
>
>i get a message from 'gnome-software'
>to update my firmware:
>"
>update configuration secure boot dbx:
>Version 217:
>This updates the dbx to the latest release from Microsoft which adds
>insecure versions of grub and shim to the list of forbidden signatures
>due to multiple discovered security updates.
>"
>but on the contrary
>apt update/upgrade does not show anything to be updated
>
>so what is this? 
>and why doesn't apt show anything?

gnome-software is talking to fwupd, which looks for updates to device
firmware. DBX is the method used by UEFI firmware to block execution
of known-bad and known-vulnerable UEFI binaries when running with
Secure Boot enabled.

Apt does not know show anything here as the DBX is not a package, it's
a lower-level update to firmware.

Does that help?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"We're the technical experts.  We were hired so that management could
 ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs."  -- Mike Andrews

firmware: secure boot dbx with software-center but not apt?

[Steven Timorol]

Hello,

i get a message from 'gnome-software'
to update my firmware:
"
update configuration secure boot dbx:
Version 217:
This updates the dbx to the latest release from Microsoft which adds
insecure versions of grub and shim to the list of forbidden signatures
due to multiple discovered security updates.
"
but on the contrary
apt update/upgrade does not show anything to be updated

so what is this? 
and why doesn't apt show anything?
S.

Re: Paying Debian contributors (Was Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software)

[riveravaldez]

On Thursday, September 15, 2022, Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:
> On 9/15/2022 11:46 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:04:48PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
>> > I am not against giving maintainers like Steve just compensation for the
>> > work they do fixing bugs, and by compensation I mean money.
>> (...)
>> to be able to force the developers to work on what you want them to
>> work on, in the way you want them to work on it. I can only ever see
>> that happening in situations where you pay much much more for a
>> bespoke solution.
>
> So I have to pay someone lots of money to fix a problem I already know how to 
> fix?

Hi, not sure at all, but maybe that could be the case, because to know
how to fix a problem and to make someone else to work on what you want
them to work on in the way you want them to work on it are just two
different and independent things. But I really don't know, just
guessing.
Best regards.

Re: Paying Debian contributors (Was Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/16/22 12:05 AM, Maude Summerside wrote:
>
> On 2022-09-15 17:56, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 9/15/2022 11:46 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:04:48PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> >>> I am not against giving maintainers like Steve just compensation for the
> >>> work they do fixing bugs, and by compensation I mean money.
> >>
> >> It's a very tricky subject to propose to start paying (some?) people
> >> in what was always a volunteer project, to do the same work that
> >> others do voluntarily. It has been proposed before, and it did not
> >> go down well. Search for "dunc tank debian" to read about that.
> >>
> >> More recently (since 2014), the Debian LTS effort started paying
> >> people to upload fixed Debian packages past the end of the normal
> >> release lifetime. This is organised by private company Freexian who
> >> accept sponsorship funds and pay developers to do this work for
> >> Debian, not out of Debian's own funds.
> >>
> >> https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
> >> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
> >> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/FAQ
> >>
> >> They do LTS, ELTS and some other limited scope efforts.
> >>
> >> If you do use Debian LTS maybe you could consider contributing to
> >> this? Though I would point out:
> >>
> >> - It's not going to give you the right to tell people what to work
> >>   on, how to do it, govern their timescales etc. Sponsors are paying
> >>   for a certain amount of developer time per month, but Freexian and
> >>   those developers decide what to work on and how to do it.
> >>
> >> - At the moment the minimum contribution is €255/year.
> >>
> >> It could also be interesting to explore individual packaging teams
> >> within Debian having Patreon and/or ko-fi accounts or similar.
> >>
> >> Broadly though, none of these small scale funding ideas are ever
> >> going to give you the kind of service you apparently seem to want:
> >> to be able to force the developers to work on what you want them to
> >> work on, in the way you want them to work on it. I can only ever see
> >> that happening in situations where you pay much much more for a
> >> bespoke solution.
> > 
> > So I have to pay someone lots of money to fix a problem I already know how 
> > to fix?
> > I don't think you really understand my use case very well.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
>
> Can you stop complaining and take a minute to go read the code of
> conduct, rules regarding the Debian mailing list.
> There's no reason to do dual posting.
>
> WtF have you written myself a personal mail ?
I think I did, but it was just an oversight. I am aware
of the Code of Conduct, and it also says everyone is
to presume good intentions, as far as possible. When
I noticed I forgot to reply to list, I sent the message
again, I think with a little more detail, to the list also,
where I should have sent the message in the first place.

BTW, just so everyone is aware, the message I sent
is on debian-user, and it is an interesting story about
a Debian bug and I don't think it was against the Code
of Conduct.

Best regards,

Chuck

Re: Paying Debian contributors (Was Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software)

[Maude Summerside]

On 2022-09-15 17:56, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 9/15/2022 11:46 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:04:48PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
>>> I am not against giving maintainers like Steve just compensation for the
>>> work they do fixing bugs, and by compensation I mean money.
>>
>> It's a very tricky subject to propose to start paying (some?) people
>> in what was always a volunteer project, to do the same work that
>> others do voluntarily. It has been proposed before, and it did not
>> go down well. Search for "dunc tank debian" to read about that.
>>
>> More recently (since 2014), the Debian LTS effort started paying
>> people to upload fixed Debian packages past the end of the normal
>> release lifetime. This is organised by private company Freexian who
>> accept sponsorship funds and pay developers to do this work for
>> Debian, not out of Debian's own funds.
>>
>> https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
>> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
>> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/FAQ
>>
>> They do LTS, ELTS and some other limited scope efforts.
>>
>> If you do use Debian LTS maybe you could consider contributing to
>> this? Though I would point out:
>>
>> - It's not going to give you the right to tell people what to work
>>   on, how to do it, govern their timescales etc. Sponsors are paying
>>   for a certain amount of developer time per month, but Freexian and
>>   those developers decide what to work on and how to do it.
>>
>> - At the moment the minimum contribution is €255/year.
>>
>> It could also be interesting to explore individual packaging teams
>> within Debian having Patreon and/or ko-fi accounts or similar.
>>
>> Broadly though, none of these small scale funding ideas are ever
>> going to give you the kind of service you apparently seem to want:
>> to be able to force the developers to work on what you want them to
>> work on, in the way you want them to work on it. I can only ever see
>> that happening in situations where you pay much much more for a
>> bespoke solution.
> 
> So I have to pay someone lots of money to fix a problem I already know how to 
> fix?
> I don't think you really understand my use case very well.
> 
> Cheers
> 

Can you stop complaining and take a minute to go read the code of
conduct, rules regarding the Debian mailing list.
There's no reason to do dual posting.

WtF have you written myself a personal mail ?
-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development

Re: Paying Debian contributors (Was Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/15/22 6:29 PM, Lee wrote:
> On 9/15/22, Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:
> >
> > So I have to pay someone lots of money to fix a problem I already know how
> > to fix?
> > I don't think you really understand my use case very well.
>
> I surely don't.  If you know how to fix whatever why haven't you fixed
> it already?

I have it fixed in the distro on one bug, but on another I still have to
apply the fix myself because no one in Debian will fix it. Fedora
developers also fixed the same bug. I discuss that bug in some
other posts here. Please read them before asking me about this
again.

Cheers,

Chuck

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/15/22 11:45 AM, Maude Summerside wrote:
>
> On 2022-09-14 23:23, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 9/14/2022 11:01 PM, Maude Summerside wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2022-09-14 21:45, Michael Stone wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:16:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>>> I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
> >>>> unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
> >>>> to spend their time on issues.
> >>>
> >>> Especially when it's an ongoing pattern of discourse.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think there's many barrier that discourage people from wanting to
> >> contribute to many project. I feel some developer use the community as
> >> unpaid beta tester but don't go further into accepting contribution.
> >>
> >> For sure, having managed some project, I have to say that it's hard to
> >> accept contribution that will add new functions to as software when
> >> these come from a unknown contributor. Not because of being scared of
> >> malicious intent (unless the person is really paranoid but that's
> >> another story). Simply because adding a new function means having to
> >> support it's ongoing development and there's no guarantee that the
> >> contributor will do so. Same goes on for code contributed that needs
> >> refactoring, that are badly documented, etc. But all this need some good
> >> social behavior from the project owner/manager.
> > 
> > As a user of the Debian software and a user of the BTS, I am discouraged not
> > because new contributions or functions are being rejected, but because bugs
> > are not being fixed. Those are two very different things. Maybe it's just 
> > too hard
> > for volunteers to fix the bugs and make Debian better, and maybe we need to
> > pay the volunteers so they are not volunteers anymore and will be motivated
> > to actually fix the Debian software. The fact that Debian is created by 
> > volunteers
> > is probably one of the really big disadvantages of Debian software.
> > 
> I think there's a piece missing hugely in *your* equation.
> The package maintainer are the LAST line of resort when there's a bug to
> fix. Sure you can report them thru BTS but they'll transmit those
> upstream to the original software developer.

Not in my experience. Most upstream projects say users should report
bugs to the distro first and let the distro's maintainers decide what to
do. The bugs I see that the Debian maintainer *should* forward to the
upstream project usually fail to do that. Of two cases of bugs affecting
my machine this past couple of years, one I reported the bug to Debian,
Debian's maintainer ignored it, I found the fix after a long bisecting process
and the fix was in the upstream part of the code. So I tagged the
bug with patch and upstream and waited for the maintainer to forward
the bug. The maintainer again ignored it so I had the opportunity to
make a contribution to an upstream project and I submitted the patch
to the upstream project myself and when it was committed upstream
I tagged the bug fixed upstream on BTS and now the bug is closed.

That is a happy ending to a bug report. The other one this year both
Debian and the upstream project, the Linux kernel, are ignoring the
bug and that is the one I described in a post earlier today to this list
when I also asked the community a question about systemd, udev,
and the coldplug all devices stage of boot where the bug happens. This
bug is still not a happy ending, at least for those who want the bug fixed.
I am not the one who reported it. I would not be surprised if the one
who reported it gave up on it and switched to Fedora or another distro
that has fixed the bug in their distro. It is the kind of bug that can be
fixed in *either* the Linux kernel upstream code or in the systemd/udev
configuration by the distro. But Debian maintainers are just volunteers
so they cannot fix it. At least that is what everyone here is telling me.

>
> What would happened if every bug was fixed by the Debian maintainer ?
> We'd end up having two different source code because at every bug fix
> there would be a different tree of source code being built.

Most users are not able to determine when they report a bug if
it is in the upstream or Debian part. I learned how to find where
the bug is because no one else in the free software world would do
it. You advocate for a world where every user can fix their own
bugs and the maintainers can complain they can't fix bugs because
they are just volunteers. That doesn't make sense to me. The BTS
is useful because users do post workarounds for the bugs that
the maintainers don't fix, but users are mistaken if they think
when they report a bug the maintainer will see to it that it
will get fixed. I also think the bot that says the maintainer
will respond to you in due course sometimes lies because in
some cases the maintainer never responds.

Best regards,

Chuck

Re: Paying Debian contributors (Was Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software)

[Lee]

On 9/15/22, Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:
>
> So I have to pay someone lots of money to fix a problem I already know how
> to fix?
> I don't think you really understand my use case very well.

I surely don't.  If you know how to fix whatever why haven't you fixed
it already?

Lee

Re: Paying Debian contributors (Was Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/15/2022 11:46 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:04:48PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > I am not against giving maintainers like Steve just compensation for the
> > work they do fixing bugs, and by compensation I mean money.
>
> It's a very tricky subject to propose to start paying (some?) people
> in what was always a volunteer project, to do the same work that
> others do voluntarily. It has been proposed before, and it did not
> go down well. Search for "dunc tank debian" to read about that.
>
> More recently (since 2014), the Debian LTS effort started paying
> people to upload fixed Debian packages past the end of the normal
> release lifetime. This is organised by private company Freexian who
> accept sponsorship funds and pay developers to do this work for
> Debian, not out of Debian's own funds.
>
> https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/FAQ
>
> They do LTS, ELTS and some other limited scope efforts.
>
> If you do use Debian LTS maybe you could consider contributing to
> this? Though I would point out:
>
> - It's not going to give you the right to tell people what to work
>   on, how to do it, govern their timescales etc. Sponsors are paying
>   for a certain amount of developer time per month, but Freexian and
>   those developers decide what to work on and how to do it.
>
> - At the moment the minimum contribution is €255/year.
>
> It could also be interesting to explore individual packaging teams
> within Debian having Patreon and/or ko-fi accounts or similar.
>
> Broadly though, none of these small scale funding ideas are ever
> going to give you the kind of service you apparently seem to want:
> to be able to force the developers to work on what you want them to
> work on, in the way you want them to work on it. I can only ever see
> that happening in situations where you pay much much more for a
> bespoke solution.

So I have to pay someone lots of money to fix a problem I already know how to 
fix?
I don't think you really understand my use case very well.

Cheers

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Dan Ritter]

Maude Summerside wrote: 
> 
> 
> On 2022-09-14 21:45, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:16:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
> >> unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
> >> to spend their time on issues.
> > 
> > Especially when it's an ongoing pattern of discourse.
> > 
> 
> I think there's many barrier that discourage people from wanting to
> contribute to many project. I feel some developer use the community as
> unpaid beta tester but don't go further into accepting contribution.
> 
> For sure, having managed some project, I have to say that it's hard to
> accept contribution that will add new functions to as software when
> these come from a unknown contributor. Not because of being scared of
> malicious intent (unless the person is really paranoid but that's
> another story). Simply because adding a new function means having to
> support it's ongoing development and there's no guarantee that the
> contributor will do so. Same goes on for code contributed that needs
> refactoring, that are badly documented, etc. But all this need some good
> social behavior from the project owner/manager.

I quite like the approach taken by Espen Jurgensen, project
owner of Owntone (formerly forked-daapd). If a feature is
requested and he thinks he might want to use it, he brings it
in. If he doesn't see a point for his own usage but thinks that
other people might want it, he asks the contributor to
maintain a fork for a few months. The initial bugs get worked
out by someone who cares about it, and then a pull request can
be made to bring it back to the main branch.

-dsr-

Paying Debian contributors (Was Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software)

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:04:48PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> I am not against giving maintainers like Steve just compensation for the
> work they do fixing bugs, and by compensation I mean money.

It's a very tricky subject to propose to start paying (some?) people
in what was always a volunteer project, to do the same work that
others do voluntarily. It has been proposed before, and it did not
go down well. Search for "dunc tank debian" to read about that.

More recently (since 2014), the Debian LTS effort started paying
people to upload fixed Debian packages past the end of the normal
release lifetime. This is organised by private company Freexian who
accept sponsorship funds and pay developers to do this work for
Debian, not out of Debian's own funds.

https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/FAQ

They do LTS, ELTS and some other limited scope efforts.

If you do use Debian LTS maybe you could consider contributing to
this? Though I would point out:

- It's not going to give you the right to tell people what to work
  on, how to do it, govern their timescales etc. Sponsors are paying
  for a certain amount of developer time per month, but Freexian and
  those developers decide what to work on and how to do it.

- At the moment the minimum contribution is €255/year.

It could also be interesting to explore individual packaging teams
within Debian having Patreon and/or ko-fi accounts or similar.

Broadly though, none of these small scale funding ideas are ever
going to give you the kind of service you apparently seem to want:
to be able to force the developers to work on what you want them to
work on, in the way you want them to work on it. I can only ever see
that happening in situations where you pay much much more for a
bespoke solution.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Maude Summerside]

On 2022-09-14 23:23, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 9/14/2022 11:01 PM, Maude Summerside wrote:
>>
>> On 2022-09-14 21:45, Michael Stone wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:16:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>> I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
>>>> unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
>>>> to spend their time on issues.
>>>
>>> Especially when it's an ongoing pattern of discourse.
>>>
>>
>> I think there's many barrier that discourage people from wanting to
>> contribute to many project. I feel some developer use the community as
>> unpaid beta tester but don't go further into accepting contribution.
>>
>> For sure, having managed some project, I have to say that it's hard to
>> accept contribution that will add new functions to as software when
>> these come from a unknown contributor. Not because of being scared of
>> malicious intent (unless the person is really paranoid but that's
>> another story). Simply because adding a new function means having to
>> support it's ongoing development and there's no guarantee that the
>> contributor will do so. Same goes on for code contributed that needs
>> refactoring, that are badly documented, etc. But all this need some good
>> social behavior from the project owner/manager.
> 
> As a user of the Debian software and a user of the BTS, I am discouraged not
> because new contributions or functions are being rejected, but because bugs
> are not being fixed. Those are two very different things. Maybe it's just too 
> hard
> for volunteers to fix the bugs and make Debian better, and maybe we need to
> pay the volunteers so they are not volunteers anymore and will be motivated
> to actually fix the Debian software. The fact that Debian is created by 
> volunteers
> is probably one of the really big disadvantages of Debian software.
> 
I think there's a piece missing hugely in *your* equation.
The package maintainer are the LAST line of resort when there's a bug to
fix. Sure you can report them thru BTS but they'll transmit those
upstream to the original software developer.

What would happened if every bug was fixed by the Debian maintainer ?
We'd end up having two different source code because at every bug fix
there would be a different tree of source code being built.

Sure maintainer will fix bug that are Debian specifics.

Didn't this ever went in your consideration ?

Maybe you should take some time to read the different documentations
relating to the roles of everyone and this would save lot of useless
anger on your side.
> Best regards,
> 
> Chuck
> 

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Jude DaShiell]

Jude 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)

.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2022, Steve McIntyre wrote:

> Stefan wrote:
> In article  you 
> write:
> >> the interest of the user. These "volunteers" obviously have other,
> >> possibly malicious, interests if they prove themselves unwilling to
> >> apply fixes to bugs that are reported to them.
> >
> >I think there's a confusion here: these volunteers will also have
> >"other, possibly malicious, interests" even if they are willing/eager
> >to apply fixes to bugs that are reported to them.
> >
> >Same goes for people you pay, so it's not specific to volunteers.
> >And of course it's also not specific to a particular kind of license.
>
> Thanks Stefan, it's great to see that some people understand the
> issues.
>
> I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
> unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
> to spend their time on issues.
>
>
I think an appropriate analogy for proprietary versus open source software
is the American Electoral College compared to The American General
Election.  The difference in the number of minds brought to apply to each
I think parallels proprietary versus open source software and whatever
effects attach to both.  Open source additionally has the internet which
varies in support quality but is far larger than any proprietary
operation.

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/14/2022 11:01 PM, Maude Summerside wrote:
>
> On 2022-09-14 21:45, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:16:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
> >> unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
> >> to spend their time on issues.
> > 
> > Especially when it's an ongoing pattern of discourse.
> > 
>
> I think there's many barrier that discourage people from wanting to
> contribute to many project. I feel some developer use the community as
> unpaid beta tester but don't go further into accepting contribution.
>
> For sure, having managed some project, I have to say that it's hard to
> accept contribution that will add new functions to as software when
> these come from a unknown contributor. Not because of being scared of
> malicious intent (unless the person is really paranoid but that's
> another story). Simply because adding a new function means having to
> support it's ongoing development and there's no guarantee that the
> contributor will do so. Same goes on for code contributed that needs
> refactoring, that are badly documented, etc. But all this need some good
> social behavior from the project owner/manager.

As a user of the Debian software and a user of the BTS, I am discouraged not
because new contributions or functions are being rejected, but because bugs
are not being fixed. Those are two very different things. Maybe it's just too 
hard
for volunteers to fix the bugs and make Debian better, and maybe we need to
pay the volunteers so they are not volunteers anymore and will be motivated
to actually fix the Debian software. The fact that Debian is created by 
volunteers
is probably one of the really big disadvantages of Debian software.

Best regards,

Chuck

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Maude Summerside]

On 2022-09-14 21:45, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:16:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
>> unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
>> to spend their time on issues.
> 
> Especially when it's an ongoing pattern of discourse.
> 

I think there's many barrier that discourage people from wanting to
contribute to many project. I feel some developer use the community as
unpaid beta tester but don't go further into accepting contribution.

For sure, having managed some project, I have to say that it's hard to
accept contribution that will add new functions to as software when
these come from a unknown contributor. Not because of being scared of
malicious intent (unless the person is really paranoid but that's
another story). Simply because adding a new function means having to
support it's ongoing development and there's no guarantee that the
contributor will do so. Same goes on for code contributed that needs
refactoring, that are badly documented, etc. But all this need some good
social behavior from the project owner/manager.

There's people who just think "I've done something free if people are
happy they use it, if they ain't they continue their journey". Those
don't accept criticism. But that's all part of the human behavior.

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/14/22 6:16 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
> In article  you 
> write:
> >> the interest of the user. These "volunteers" obviously have other,
> >> possibly malicious, interests if they prove themselves unwilling to
> >> apply fixes to bugs that are reported to them.
> >
> >I think there's a confusion here: these volunteers will also have
> >"other, possibly malicious, interests" even if they are willing/eager
> >to apply fixes to bugs that are reported to them.
> >
> >Same goes for people you pay, so it's not specific to volunteers.
> >And of course it's also not specific to a particular kind of license.
>
> Thanks Stefan, it's great to see that some people understand the
> issues.
>
> I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
> unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
> to spend their time on issues.
>

Thank you Steve, for the work you do as maintaining the grub software
packages on Debian.

I am not against giving maintainers like Steve just compensation for the
work they do fixing bugs, and by compensation I mean money.

Why not require the user to pay a small fee when reporting a bug
which can be used to provide just compensation for the services the
maintainers provide to the community when the maintainer fixes bugs?
I would be willing to pay a reasonably small fee that would go to the
maintainers who worked on the bug and successfully fixed it.

I'll be brutally honest: Being accused of being a troll is *not* a
great way to convince Debian users who want to contribute to
and help Debian to spend their free time helping maintainers fix
the bugs reported to the BTS. I also suspect many users agree
with me, but are afraid to say so for fear of being accused of
being a troll.

Best regards,

Chuck

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Michael Stone]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:16:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:

I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
to spend their time on issues.


Especially when it's an ongoing pattern of discourse.

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Maude Summerside]

On 2022-09-14 17:06, Thiemo Kellner wrote:
> Am 14.09.22 um 18:39 schrieb Maude Summerside:
>> This is where intellectual shortcut starts...
>> Free/OSS doesn't mean GPL.
>> There's plenty of Free/OSS software that the copyright owner retains
>> right to commercial licensing. Just look at libraries, some of them will
>> be in such a licensing term that if you use the free version, you have
>> to share your code if you distribute it but they offer a commercial
>> license that allow you to link and distribute without source code. If
>> you only stick to Debian, no such thing because they aren't in the
>> licensing term accepted for distribution.
>>
>> But let say QT, you have a free version, force you to distribute freely
>> if linked against or you go with the commercial license.
>>
>> Why would the owner of the copyright regarding Chromium (that can write
>> their own terms) couldn't reserve himself a right to make a closed
>> source version (like Google Chrome, owned by the owner of Chromium
>> license).
>>
>> Something taking a break and make some research just shows off that we
>> don't only know how to type code, but we have a bit more knowledge than
>> that, regarding mostly real life example of what's also part of the
>> ecosystem.
> Thanks for trying to point out. I am afraid, it is beyond me as is dual
> licensing in general.
> 

We all have our forces and weakness, so we are all the same.
I'm probably not as fast as you can be for writing JavaScript code,
HTML, or whatever you do. But my force is mostly at project management,
legal and business side of IT solutions.

I've driven mostly medical projects so I'm pretty used to the *thingy*
related to licensing.

The error I see the most often is generalizing a situation, in this case
thinking that GPL means Free/OSS. And even there free ain't OSS.

One of the reason behind the birth of MariaDB was such a dual licensing
change to MySQL when eveil-Oracle purchased the right to the software.

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Steve McIntyre]

Stefan wrote:
In article  you write:
>> the interest of the user. These "volunteers" obviously have other,
>> possibly malicious, interests if they prove themselves unwilling to
>> apply fixes to bugs that are reported to them.
>
>I think there's a confusion here: these volunteers will also have
>"other, possibly malicious, interests" even if they are willing/eager
>to apply fixes to bugs that are reported to them.
>
>Same goes for people you pay, so it's not specific to volunteers.
>And of course it's also not specific to a particular kind of license.

Thanks Stefan, it's great to see that some people understand the
issues.

I'll be brutally honest: being accused of "possibly malicious"
unwilligness is *not* a great way to convince overstretched volunteers
to spend their time on issues.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"We're the technical experts.  We were hired so that management could
 ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs."  -- Mike Andrews

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Thiemo Kellner]

Am 14.09.22 um 18:39 schrieb Maude Summerside:

This is where intellectual shortcut starts...
Free/OSS doesn't mean GPL.
There's plenty of Free/OSS software that the copyright owner retains
right to commercial licensing. Just look at libraries, some of them will
be in such a licensing term that if you use the free version, you have
to share your code if you distribute it but they offer a commercial
license that allow you to link and distribute without source code. If
you only stick to Debian, no such thing because they aren't in the
licensing term accepted for distribution.

But let say QT, you have a free version, force you to distribute freely
if linked against or you go with the commercial license.

Why would the owner of the copyright regarding Chromium (that can write
their own terms) couldn't reserve himself a right to make a closed
source version (like Google Chrome, owned by the owner of Chromium license).

Something taking a break and make some research just shows off that we
don't only know how to type code, but we have a bit more knowledge than
that, regarding mostly real life example of what's also part of the
ecosystem.
Thanks for trying to point out. I am afraid, it is beyond me as is dual 
licensing in general.


--
Signal (Safer than WhatsApp): +49 1578 7723737
Threema (Safer than WhatsApp): A76MKH3J
Handy: +49 1578 772 37 37

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Maude Summerside]

On 2022-09-14 08:31, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

>>> For example, most web
>>> browsers are based on chromium, a free oss project that comes in large part 
>>> from
>>> Google, but some of the most-used browsers in the world based on chromium
>>> are proprietary, such as chrome and edge.
>> I am not sure that this holds true. I would be quite surprised that 
>> chromium or edged can legally use code of a OSS browser, being CSS. But 
>> I am not an attorney.

This is where intellectual shortcut starts...
Free/OSS doesn't mean GPL.
There's plenty of Free/OSS software that the copyright owner retains
right to commercial licensing. Just look at libraries, some of them will
be in such a licensing term that if you use the free version, you have
to share your code if you distribute it but they offer a commercial
license that allow you to link and distribute without source code. If
you only stick to Debian, no such thing because they aren't in the
licensing term accepted for distribution.

But let say QT, you have a free version, force you to distribute freely
if linked against or you go with the commercial license.

Why would the owner of the copyright regarding Chromium (that can write
their own terms) couldn't reserve himself a right to make a closed
source version (like Google Chrome, owned by the owner of Chromium license).

Something taking a break and make some research just shows off that we
don't only know how to type code, but we have a bit more knowledge than
that, regarding mostly real life example of what's also part of the
ecosystem.

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

People of debian-user :)

This thread does seem to be degenerating slightly into accusations and
name-calling, justified or not. Without prejudice to anyone: please may
I remind you that debian-user and all Debian lists and IRC channels are
subject to the Debian Code of Conduct.

It would be very much appreciated if disagreements could be resolved 
constructively and in a positive way. Ad hominem attacks don't help
anyone here. Taking a breath / walking away from the keyboard for half
a day might also help get a sense of perspective in any mailing list
opinion difference. (And yes, I know about https://xkcd.com/386/ and 
the difficulty that brings).

With every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater

[For and on behalf of the Debian Community Team]

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/14/2022 9:06 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2022-09-14 at 08:51, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
>
> > On 9/14/2022 1:03 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 03:41:11PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> Actually, someone already has shown us how to do it better. His name is
> >>> Linus Torvalds [...]
> >>
> >> I don't know what your aim is.
> >>
> >> I have the impression that it's just arguing for arguing's sake [1].
> >>
> >> [1] in the classical sense of "trolling", as per Wikipedia:
> >>  "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory,
> >>   insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in
> >>   an online community [...], with the intent of provoking readers
> >>   into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others'
> >>   perception.
> >>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling
> > 
> > So you are accusing me of being a troll. Well, it takes one to know one.
>
> No, it very much does not.
>
> > Congratulations! I am starting my own list of trolls on debian-user and
> > you are the first member of that list.
>
> Given the long, long history of helping people that Tomas has on this
> mailing list, I think that if you want to convince anyone other than
> yourself that Tomas is a troll, you're going to have a *very* heavy lift
> (or a whole lot of lying) ahead of you.
>
> (Mind, by my personal definition - which is a bit different from the
> above, though probably still largely compatible - I'm not entirely
> convinced that you're a troll either. But you're *definitely* behaving
> in such a way that I do not blame others for reaching that conclusion.)

I admit that I behaved like a troll when i tried to enter into a conversation 
with
Tomas. I do know he helps many people on this list, that is something good he
does. But on this thread, he also behaved like a troll and caused me to also
behave like a troll. That is a fact, if anyone wants to take the time to look at
what he said, the things he omitted in his replies, etc.

I especially noted his response to my introduction of the idea in this thread
that open source projects like Debian consider themselves communities, and
I wanted to emphasize that those who volunteer to help out with Debian or
other free software communities should not serve their own interests but the
interests of the community. After I made those points, that is when Tomas
started his ad hominum attacks against me and turned the conversation away
from what it means for Debian to be a community and changed it into an ad
hominum attack against me. It causes me to think there are some aspects of
the idea of Debian as a community that are offensive to him. From what he
actually did in this thread, I am inclined to think his idea of Debian as a 
community
is that it is a community of developers only, and not of users. Maybe he is 
right
about that. Maybe Debian *is only* a community of the one thousand or so
Debian developers with voting rights, and the rest of us are trolls if we dare 
to
express our opinions as mere Debian users on the debian-user list or on any
other Debian hosted forum.

So I am going to be very careful about trying to have an objective conversation
with Tomas, given what I actually saw him do in this thread, and given the 
mistake
I made by letting him bait me into appearing to be a troll. I will be careful
to not let that happen again.

Best regards,

Chuck

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/13/2022 7:11 PM, Thiemo Kellner wrote:
> Am 13.09.22 um 23:55 schrieb Chuck Zmudzinski:
> > 
>
> > I am fairly sure I was a victim of
> > the breach of Yahoo that affected hundreds of millions of its users.
> I am sorry for you. I do not know this case, so I cannot tell whether 
> OSS or CSS components of their service were breached, or even a social 
> engineering case.

There is information about the Yahoo data breach on the Internet, including the
$117 million class action case on behalf of 194 million class members:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/what-to-do-if-you-got-email-from-yahoo-about-a-data-breach-settlement.html

I don't know if there is enough information available in the public domain to 
determine
to what extent free/oss software might have contributed to that data breach. I 
do remember
Yahoo admitted the number of affected accounts was around 500 million.

Best regards,

Chuck

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[The Wanderer]

On 2022-09-14 at 08:51, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

> On 9/14/2022 1:03 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 03:41:11PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Actually, someone already has shown us how to do it better. His name is
>>> Linus Torvalds [...]
>>
>> I don't know what your aim is.
>>
>> I have the impression that it's just arguing for arguing's sake [1].
>>
>> [1] in the classical sense of "trolling", as per Wikipedia:
>>  "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory,
>>   insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in
>>   an online community [...], with the intent of provoking readers
>>   into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others'
>>   perception.
>>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling
> 
> So you are accusing me of being a troll. Well, it takes one to know one.

No, it very much does not.

> Congratulations! I am starting my own list of trolls on debian-user and
> you are the first member of that list.

Given the long, long history of helping people that Tomas has on this
mailing list, I think that if you want to convince anyone other than
yourself that Tomas is a troll, you're going to have a *very* heavy lift
(or a whole lot of lying) ahead of you.

(Mind, by my personal definition - which is a bit different from the
above, though probably still largely compatible - I'm not entirely
convinced that you're a troll either. But you're *definitely* behaving
in such a way that I do not blame others for reaching that conclusion.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/14/2022 1:03 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 03:41:11PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Actually, someone already has shown us how to do it better. His name is
> > Linus Torvalds [...]
>
> I don't know what your aim is.
>
> I have the impression that it's just arguing for arguing's sake [1].
>
> [1] in the classical sense of "trolling", as per Wikipedia:
>  "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory,
>   insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in
>   an online community [...], with the intent of provoking readers
>   into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others'
>   perception.
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling
>

So you are accusing me of being a troll. Well, it takes one to know one.

Congratulations! I am starting my own list of trolls on debian-user and
you are the first member of that list.

Chuck

Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/14/2022 7:08 AM, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> > On 9/13/2022 3:59 PM, err...@free.fr wrote:
> > > Please STOP!
> > >
> > > you are annoying, and if you want improve free softwares, is not
> > > like this. you will better contribute with your code or with your
> > > translations than by writing to this mailing-list  
>
> I agree with the sentiments of annoyance and that this thread should
> stop now, please.

Not everyone agrees, because some have still been making comments here that
in my opinion and theirs are constructive and not just trolling.

>
> > The problem is, with all due respect, that I do have my code
> > improvements for free software, but some free software people do not
> > want to accept my contributions but instead want to allow the free
> > software to continue to have the bugs, and they will not explain
> > themselves either. Why should I waste my time contributing to
> > software projects who do not want my contributions? Treating people
> > who want to contribute this way is not the way to gain more advocates
> > for free software!
>
> But again you have been asked before to be specific about your
> objections, so a link to your proposed code improvements and whatever
> conversation there was when you submitted them would go some way to
> justifying the space and time you have already wasted on this list.
>
> > > I want you kicked from this list.  
> > 
> > Well, if you get me kicked off, I will be kicked off. But that is not
> > the way to build a community of people trying to make good software.
> > That is all I am advocating for, and I am really surprised to be
> > treated this way on this list for advocating for improved software in
> > Debian. I guess the trolls on here do not really want to increase the
> > number of people working on improving Debian. But without more
> > people, Debian cannot possibly provide quality support for 59,000
> > free software packages. That is just a fact, even it no one here
> > wants to acknowledge it.
>
> I haven't seen much evidence of trolls here, apart from yourself.

I did make the mistake of feeding a couple of trolls, from now on I will ignore 
them.
They baited me into appearing as a troll by refusing to acknowledge a simple 
truth
and forcing me to say the same obvious truth over and over again, and I 
understand
why some people might be annoyed by that.

Chuck