Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[William Park via talk]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:40:54AM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
> There are other potentially interesting items on sale today "Black Friday 
> in July".  If you like tiny PCs, look at the ThinkCentre M75 Tiny or the 
> ThinkCentre M90n ("n" stands for "nano").

This is interesting.  ThinkCentre M90n for 
- $559 -- 8GB ram, 512GB PCIe SSD, i5-8265U
- $805 -- 16GB ram, 512GB PCIe SSD, i7-8665U
-- 
William Park 
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[William Park via talk]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:40:54AM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
> Starting at noon today, Lenovo has a modestly spec'ed T490 for $1000.  I 
> think that that's a good price.

Thanks.
-- 
William Park 
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[Anthony de Boer via talk]

Lennart Sorensen via talk wrote:
> I guess Lenovo is clearing out the T490s given the T14 is the current
> model.  I have no idea why they only offer AMD Ryzen in 14" T series,
> and intel only for the 15".

It could be that they positioned two models "diagonally" from each other
for people who want a specific CPU brand or exact screen size, so they
could satisfy four possible choices with only two models. But much more
likely they're already cleaned out of whatever other models they had.

-- 
Anthony de Boer
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Bash does-directory-exist question

[John Sellens via talk]

On Fri, 2020/07/10 05:39:59PM -0400, Giles Orr  wrote:
| I love this list!  I thought that '[ -w . ]' and '[ -w $PWD ]' were
| practically equivalent.  "Practically" means, in this case, "almost."
| But not quite - and the difference is the solution to the problem.

It's a very important, though sometimes subtle, concept in unix-land
that there are multiple names for just about anything.

Here, obviously, $PWD is a variable substitution equivalent to /some/path,
which likely existed at some point, but may or may not exist now.  The
directory "." always (I think) exists, because a process always has a
current directory open. (Hmmm, but opendir(".") might not work?)

The other canonical example is "how do I remove a file that starts with -?".
The key to that of course is the multiple names thing "-file" (which looks
like an option string) is the same as "./-file" (which doesn't).

Once you understand that, the world opens up :-)

Of course, most times "rm -- -file" works but I'm old enough (uh, I mean
I've read about the history of unix) to know that -- didn't always exist.

Cheers

John
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Bash does-directory-exist question

[Giles Orr via talk]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 11:11, David Mason  wrote:
>
> (base) : ~/foo ; [ -w .. ] && echo true
> true
> (base) : ~/foo ; /bin/pwd
> pwd: .: No such file or directory
> (base) : ~/foo ; pwd
> /Users/dmason/foo
> (base) : ~/foo ; [ -w $PWD ] && echo true
> (base) : ~/foo ;
>
> So, /bin/pwd fails and [ -w $PWD ] also fails, as John hypothesized
>
> ../Dave
> On Jul 10, 2020, 11:01 AM -0400, John Sellens via talk , 
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020/07/10 09:38:48AM -0400, Giles Orr via talk  
> wrote:
> | This gives immediate visual feedback on the write-status of the
> | current directory. But test's '-w' and '-d' both claim that you're
> | still in a valid directory under the above circumstances. Does anyone
> | know of a simple way to find out if the directory you're currently in
> | actually exists?
>
> The directory "." will still exist while you have it open (your current
> directory), but will be unreachable, as you observed with stat(1) and
> the number of links.
>
> Would checking for "test -d $PWD" work? I think $PWD is the full path
> and so if it's no longer reachable, the test should fail?
>
> Hope that helps

I love this list!  I thought that '[ -w . ]' and '[ -w $PWD ]' were
practically equivalent.  "Practically" means, in this case, "almost."
But not quite - and the difference is the solution to the problem.
Thanks everyone, particularly John and Dave.

-- 
Giles
https://www.gilesorr.com/
giles...@gmail.com
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[James Knott via talk]

On 2020-07-10 04:17 PM, James Knott wrote:

St. Hilda's Towers, a seniors residence at Dufferin & St. Clair.


Correction, Dufferin & Eglinton.

---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[James Knott via talk]

On 2020-07-10 04:04 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 12:37, James Knott via talk > wrote:


On 2020-07-10 12:32 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> then associate your guest SSID with that VLAN.

Yes, you associate the SSID with a VLAN.  It's entirely possible
to have
a Guest SSID without VLANs on a WiFi router, that uses only
routing to
forward the guest traffic out to the 'net.  VLAN is a LAN function
that
has nothing to do with WiFi and SSID is a WiFi function that has
nothing to do with the LAN.


Yes. I agree, you don't really need VLANs if you have only one WiFi 
access point. But if you have more than one WiFi access point and you 
want to avoid WDS, which is often not great in congested environments, 
you'd use Ethernet and VLANs to connect your Wi-Fi access points.




Mulitple SSIDs are not the only reason for VLANs.  For example, many 
companies have VoIP phones on the same Ethernet port as the computers.  
The cable connects to the phone and the computer plugs into the phone.  
Here a VLAN is used, without anything to do with WiFi.  Several years 
ago, I set up a network at St. Hilda's Towers, a seniors residence at 
Dufferin & St. Clair.  There were 3 VLANs on the cable.  The native LAN 
was for the office computers, 1 VLAN for office VoIP, 1 VLAN for 
resident's Internet access and 1 VLAN for the management interfaces.  
While there were WiFi access points that carried both the office and 
resident WiFi, the otherwise had nothing to do with VALNs.  I could have 
just as easily set up the network without WiFi.


Again, VLANs and SSIDs are completely independent concepts.  As I 
mentioned, you can have multiple SSIDs without VLANs and multiple VLANs 
without any WiFi.  In some circumstances, as at St. Hilda's you could 
have a WiFi SSID on a VLAN.


Incidentally, VLANs fall under the IEEE 802.3 spec and SSIDs under 
802.11, which are completely separate and unrelated specs.


---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[Val Kulkov via talk]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 12:37, James Knott via talk  wrote:

> On 2020-07-10 12:32 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> > then associate your guest SSID with that VLAN.
>
> Yes, you associate the SSID with a VLAN.  It's entirely possible to have
> a Guest SSID without VLANs on a WiFi router, that uses only routing to
> forward the guest traffic out to the 'net.  VLAN is a LAN function that
> has nothing to do with WiFi and SSID is a WiFi function that has
> nothing to do with the LAN.
>

Yes. I agree, you don't really need VLANs if you have only one WiFi access
point. But if you have more than one WiFi access point and you want to
avoid WDS, which is often not great in congested environments, you'd use
Ethernet and VLANs to connect your Wi-Fi access points.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Bash does-directory-exist question

[Christopher Browne via talk]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 09:39, Giles Orr via talk  wrote:

> The worst case I've seen is 'git', and this is what's brought me back
> to this puzzle. If you're in a directory and you 'git rm' the last
> file in the directory, 'git' will helpfully delete the directory as
> well.  Never mind that you're still in the directory, and are now in
> the very confusing position of being in a non-existent directory.
>

Huh.  I just experienced this situation for (as far as I can tell) the
very first time about 1/2h ago.  I was in a directory, did a merge
that got rid of the only file in $PWD, and found myself in that
somewhat odd place.

I wasn't overly confused at it; I realized that a broadly reasonable
thing was happening.   But yeah, it was strange.

I was in zsh rather than bash; that made little difference in the
matter.  I had a strange looking prompt, but all resolved fine.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] recent Fedora releases refused to see an old NAS

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

| From: Val Kulkov via talk 

|  Setting "client min protocol = NT1" is indeed a bad, bad idea from the
| security standpoint.
| 
| Check out this article:
| 
https://www.ixsystems.com/community/resources/how-to-kill-off-smb1-netbios-wins-and-still-have-windows-network-neighbourhood-better-than-ever.106/
| The approach described in this article worked to fix the same or very
| similar problem in my case, and it might help you with your problem too.

Thanks.  It sheds some light on the mess.  Or stack of messes.

It's written from a Windows standpoint and I've never had a Windows
standpoint.

The problematic devices are cheap cosumer NAS boxes.  They run Linux
but they are designed to fit into a Windows world.  They are old and
run old "firmware".  The way to change them is to throw them out, but
we don't tend to throw anything out here.  We still have our first
computer (an Altair), even if we don't actually use it.

Discovery isn't much of a problem here.  Every service is on a static
IP address with a proper DNS entry.  (Even so, network printing is
another black box that just works unless it doesn't.  I think mDNS is
being used.)
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[James Knott via talk]

On 2020-07-10 12:32 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:

then associate your guest SSID with that VLAN.


Yes, you associate the SSID with a VLAN.  It's entirely possible to have 
a Guest SSID without VLANs on a WiFi router, that uses only routing to 
forward the guest traffic out to the 'net.  VLAN is a LAN function that 
has nothing to do with WiFi and SSID is a WiFi function that has  
nothing to do with the LAN.



---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[Val Kulkov via talk]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 12:17, James Knott via talk  wrote:

> On 2020-07-10 12:13 PM, Val Kulkov via talk wrote:
> > I forgot to add that if enabling wpa_disable_eapol_key_retries does
> > cause interoperability issues on a Wi-Fi network, then one can create
> > a guest VLAN with this parameter disabled, and enable this parameter
> > on a secure non-guest VLAN. This is not difficult to achieve with
> > OpenWrt, and I will be happy to provide details in a separate thread
> > if there is some interest.
> >
>
> Guest VLAN???  Perhaps you meant Guest SSID.  WPA has nothing to do with
> VLANs.
>

You set up a guest VLAN on your OpenWrt device and then associate your
guest SSID with that VLAN. If you have multiple Wi-Fi access points, they
must all support 802.1q VLANs and be configured to communicate with the
main router on the main VLAN and on the guest VLAN in order to use DHCP,
DNS, routing and other services provided by the main router.

Recent OpenWrt releases also support virtual SSIDs, but I have not tried
them and cannot comment on their usefulness.

See this guide for example, it is a little outdated but still useful:
https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/guestwifi/guest-wlan


>
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] recent Fedora releases refused to see an old NAS

[Val Kulkov via talk]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 11:40, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk 
wrote:

> We have an old IOmega Home Media Server, Cloud Edition NAS.
>
> It's just a single external 3.5" HDD with a little ARM board to turn it
> into a NAS.  This is so old that the company has changed a few times:
> EMC bought IOmega
> Dell bought EMC
> Lenovo bought (parts of?) EMC from Dell
> Perhaps I've missed some steps.
>
> Since I updated our desktops Fedora 31, Nautilus (AKA "Files") on the
> Gnome desktop could not see it.
>
> To fix this took a bit of discovery.  Eventually I added a line to
> /etc/samba/smb.conf.  In the [global] section:
>
> client min protocol = NT1
>
> This isn't a great thing from a security standpoint but it's no worse
> than before the Fedora update.
>
> This is surely obvious to any experienced Samba user, but I'm not one.
> My only use of Samba is to access our NASes throuh Nautilus.
>
>
 Setting "client min protocol = NT1" is indeed a bad, bad idea from the
security standpoint.

Check out this article:
https://www.ixsystems.com/community/resources/how-to-kill-off-smb1-netbios-wins-and-still-have-windows-network-neighbourhood-better-than-ever.106/
The approach described in this article worked to fix the same or very
similar problem in my case, and it might help you with your problem too.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[James Knott via talk]

On 2020-07-10 12:13 PM, Val Kulkov via talk wrote:
I forgot to add that if enabling wpa_disable_eapol_key_retries does 
cause interoperability issues on a Wi-Fi network, then one can create 
a guest VLAN with this parameter disabled, and enable this parameter 
on a secure non-guest VLAN. This is not difficult to achieve with 
OpenWrt, and I will be happy to provide details in a separate thread 
if there is some interest.




Guest VLAN???  Perhaps you meant Guest SSID.  WPA has nothing to do with 
VLANs.


---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[Val Kulkov via talk]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 11:41, Val Kulkov  wrote:

>
> OpenWrt does provide a workaround for WPA key reinstallation attacks. See
>> the description of "wpa_disable_eapol_key_retries" parameter and the
>> comments that follow at this page:
>> https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/basic
>>
>
>
I forgot to add that if enabling wpa_disable_eapol_key_retries does cause
interoperability issues on a Wi-Fi network, then one can create a guest
VLAN with this parameter disabled, and enable this parameter on a secure
non-guest VLAN. This is not difficult to achieve with OpenWrt, and I will
be happy to provide details in a separate thread if there is some interest.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[Val Kulkov via talk]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 08:34, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk 
wrote:

>
> (WPS does or did have a weakness if I remember correctly.  My brute
> force solution has been to disable WPS.  There may have been fixes.)
>
> Ohh.  KRACK.  WPA2 isn't competent.  I forgot.
> ---
> Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
>

OpenWrt does provide a workaround for WPA key reinstallation attacks. See
the description of "wpa_disable_eapol_key_retries" parameter and the
comments that follow at this page:
https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wifi/basic
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

[GTALUG] recent Fedora releases refused to see an old NAS

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

We have an old IOmega Home Media Server, Cloud Edition NAS.

It's just a single external 3.5" HDD with a little ARM board to turn it 
into a NAS.  This is so old that the company has changed a few times:
EMC bought IOmega
Dell bought EMC
Lenovo bought (parts of?) EMC from Dell
Perhaps I've missed some steps.

Since I updated our desktops Fedora 31, Nautilus (AKA "Files") on the
Gnome desktop could not see it.

To fix this took a bit of discovery.  Eventually I added a line to
/etc/samba/smb.conf.  In the [global] section:

client min protocol = NT1

This isn't a great thing from a security standpoint but it's no worse
than before the Fedora update.

This is surely obvious to any experienced Samba user, but I'm not one.
My only use of Samba is to access our NASes throuh Nautilus.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Bash does-directory-exist question

[David Mason via talk]

(base) : ~/foo ; [ -w .. ] && echo true
true
(base) : ~/foo ; /bin/pwd
pwd: .: No such file or directory
(base) : ~/foo ; pwd
/Users/dmason/foo
(base) : ~/foo ; [ -w $PWD ] && echo true
(base) : ~/foo ;

So, /bin/pwd fails and [ -w $PWD ] also fails, as John hypothesized

../Dave
On Jul 10, 2020, 11:01 AM -0400, John Sellens via talk , wrote:
> On Fri, 2020/07/10 09:38:48AM -0400, Giles Orr via talk  
> wrote:
> | This gives immediate visual feedback on the write-status of the
> | current directory. But test's '-w' and '-d' both claim that you're
> | still in a valid directory under the above circumstances. Does anyone
> | know of a simple way to find out if the directory you're currently in
> | actually exists?
>
> The directory "." will still exist while you have it open (your current
> directory), but will be unreachable, as you observed with stat(1) and
> the number of links.
>
> Would checking for "test -d $PWD" work? I think $PWD is the full path
> and so if it's no longer reachable, the test should fail?
>
> Hope that helps
>
> John
> ---
> Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
> Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Bash does-directory-exist question

[John Sellens via talk]

On Fri, 2020/07/10 09:38:48AM -0400, Giles Orr via talk  wrote:
| This gives immediate visual feedback on the write-status of the
| current directory.  But test's '-w' and '-d' both claim that you're
| still in a valid directory under the above circumstances.  Does anyone
| know of a simple way to find out if the directory you're currently in
| actually exists?

The directory "." will still exist while you have it open (your current
directory), but will be unreachable, as you observed with stat(1) and
the number of links.

Would checking for "test -d $PWD" work?  I think $PWD is the full path
and so if it's no longer reachable, the test should fail?

Hope that helps

John
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] Bash does-directory-exist question

[Howard Gibson via talk]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:38:48 -0400
Giles Orr via talk  wrote:

> I have a strange Bash question for you.  It's an edge case, but I've
> run into it just often enough that I'd like to know how to deal with
> it.
> 
> How do you determine if the directory you're in has been deleted?

Giles,

   Is this command line or scripting?

-- 
Howard Gibson 
hgib...@eol.ca
jhowardgib...@gmail.com
http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

| From: James Knott via talk 

| According to what I've read elsewhere, Lenovo is working to make the entire
| ThinkPad line Linux friendly.  I don't know what the situation is with Dell,
| though, IIRC, they have had some Linux models in the past.

That's good.

Generally, the ThinkPad line has always been Linux-friendly, but only
semi-officially.

Most notebooks are fine for Linux, but not by design.  So they can
make bad choices.  My recent experience:

- tablets sometimes cannot sleep (eg. Dell Venue 11 pro)

- older tablets or netbooks built out of an Atom SoC can be oddly
  wired together (eg. Asus T100ta).

- fingerprint readers may be proprietary (I've never investigated)

- NVidia GPUs are the usual horror show.  On my Dell XPS 15, it was
  particularly annoying.  But solved.

Dell once shipped a netbook with Linux that didn't work out well.
There was a binary-only driver for the GPU and so the kernel could
never be updated.  So shipping with Linux was no guarantee in this
case.  The fundamental problem was that Intel licensed PowerVR IP, but
not the right to release specs.  So there was no future that GPU under
Linux.  So it wasn't exactly Dell's or Intel's fault, but it really
was.



When you look at this list, it is amazingly short.---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[Lennart Sorensen via talk]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 10:23:08AM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
> A good amount would be a second 8G stick since that would allow dual 
> channel operation (I think -- do check).
> 
> I bet you could add a 16G stick, leaving you with 24G total.  I think that 
> there are even 32G sticks now.
> 
> This might be explained in the PSREF entry for this model.

Well according to crucial.com the maximum memory is 48GB, so 16GB onboard
and 32GB stick.

I guess Lenovo is clearing out the T490s given the T14 is the current
model.  I have no idea why they only offer AMD Ryzen in 14" T series,
and intel only for the 15".

-- 
Len Sorensen
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

| From: James Knott via talk 

| How much memory can be added?  8 GB is likely not enough these days.  My E520
| has 8 GB and I find it's getting tight when running a W10 virtual machine.  A
| few years ago, it ran fine, but both Linux and Windows have grown.  I'm
| running openSUSE Leap 15.2.

A good amount would be a second 8G stick since that would allow dual 
channel operation (I think -- do check).

I bet you could add a 16G stick, leaving you with 24G total.  I think that 
there are even 32G sticks now.

This might be explained in the PSREF entry for this model.---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[James Knott via talk]

On 2020-07-10 10:19 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:

There are raging debates about Dell and Lenovo AMD-based notebooks on
redflagdeals.com these
days.  If you are hunting for a notebook, consider looking at those
discussions.



According to what I've read elsewhere, Lenovo is working to make the 
entire ThinkPad line Linux friendly.  I don't know what the situation is 
with Dell, though, IIRC, they have had some Linux models in the past.


---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[James Knott via talk]

On 2020-07-10 10:10 AM, Don Tai via talk wrote:

Is it me or can anyone else scroll right?



There is the "Next" button, which causes the picture to shift over, 
revealing a couple of models with 16 GB.


---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

If you join up with rakuten.ca, and get to Lenovo through the Rakuten 
site, you will get 8% cash back on any purchase today.  Ditto for Dell.ca 
purchases.

There are raging debates about Dell and Lenovo AMD-based notebooks on 
redflagdeals.com these 
days.  If you are hunting for a notebook, consider looking at those 
discussions.

There is also an RFD thread about the ThinkCentre M90n.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[Don Tai via talk]

Is it me or can anyone else scroll right?

https://www.lenovo.com/ca/en/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpad-t-series/T490/p/22TP2TT4900

8G soldered RAM is a bit too lean for me.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 09:40, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk 
wrote:

> Lenovo list prices always seem high to me.  But unpredictably they have
> significant discounts.  Sometimes the resulting prices seem reasonable.
>
> ThinkPads are generally the standard best bet for UNIX.
>
> Starting at noon today, Lenovo has a modestly spec'ed T490 for $1000.  I
> think that that's a good price.
>
> Bad news: it appears that T490 notebooks have one soldered-in 8GiB RAM and
> one RAM socket.
>
> Here's the current line-up.  Scroll right ("NEXT" button on page) to see
> the model I'm talking about.
>
> <
> https://www.lenovo.com/ca/en/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpad-t-series/T490/p/22TP2TT4900
> >
>
> There are other potentially interesting items on sale today "Black Friday
> in July".  If you like tiny PCs, look at the ThinkCentre M75 Tiny or the
> ThinkCentre M90n ("n" stands for "nano").
> ---
> Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
> Unsubscribe from this mailing list
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

[GTALUG] finding out the shared object (dynamically linked libraries) use by a program

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

Sometime you want to know what .so libraries are used by a program.

Let's say that the program's binary is in /bin/prog.
$ ldd /bin/prog
will do the trick.  Except it doesn't capture everything.  Sometimes
you need to examine the running program.

Let's say you wish to find out what process 123 has loaded at this time.
$ pmap 123 -p
or
$ lsof -p 123
(The -p in each command means something different.)
In each case, look for lines with the string ".so".
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[James Knott via talk]

On 2020-07-10 09:40 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:

Bad news: it appears that T490 notebooks have one soldered-in 8GiB RAM and
one RAM socket.


How much memory can be added?  8 GB is likely not enough these days.  My 
E520 has 8 GB and I find it's getting tight when running a W10 virtual 
machine.  A few years ago, it ran fine, but both Linux and Windows have 
grown.  I'm running openSUSE Leap 15.2.


---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

[GTALUG] sale today on ThnkPad T490 and tiny ThinkCentre PCs

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

Lenovo list prices always seem high to me.  But unpredictably they have 
significant discounts.  Sometimes the resulting prices seem reasonable.

ThinkPads are generally the standard best bet for UNIX.

Starting at noon today, Lenovo has a modestly spec'ed T490 for $1000.  I 
think that that's a good price.

Bad news: it appears that T490 notebooks have one soldered-in 8GiB RAM and 
one RAM socket.

Here's the current line-up.  Scroll right ("NEXT" button on page) to see 
the model I'm talking about.



There are other potentially interesting items on sale today "Black Friday 
in July".  If you like tiny PCs, look at the ThinkCentre M75 Tiny or the 
ThinkCentre M90n ("n" stands for "nano").
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

[GTALUG] Bash does-directory-exist question

[Giles Orr via talk]

I have a strange Bash question for you.  It's an edge case, but I've
run into it just often enough that I'd like to know how to deal with
it.

How do you determine if the directory you're in has been deleted?

I've done this to myself: 'cd' to a directory in one terminal, then
'rm -r' that same directory in another terminal.  It becomes very
confusing when you try to do something in the first terminal: 'touch
test.txt' responds with "touch: cannot touch 'test.txt': No such file
or directory".  Which is exceptionally hard to decipher because of
course it doesn't exist, I was trying to create it!

The worst case I've seen is 'git', and this is what's brought me back
to this puzzle. If you're in a directory and you 'git rm' the last
file in the directory, 'git' will helpfully delete the directory as
well.  Never mind that you're still in the directory, and are now in
the very confusing position of being in a non-existent directory.

One of my hobbies is tinkering with Bash Prompts.  It's fairly easy to
use 'test/[' to determine if a directory is writable with 'if [ -w .]
...' and then change the colour of the prompt based on the response.
This gives immediate visual feedback on the write-status of the
current directory.  But test's '-w' and '-d' both claim that you're
still in a valid directory under the above circumstances.  Does anyone
know of a simple way to find out if the directory you're currently in
actually exists?

I may have found my own answer: 'stat .' returns (in part) "Links: 0"
which would seem to indicate a non-existent node.  Is that a
definitive answer?  (I don't use 'stat' much.)  I'm also interested to
see if anyone else has a simpler or more "Bash" answer.

Thanks.

-- 
Giles
https://www.gilesorr.com/
giles...@gmail.com
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [GTALUG] OpenWRT Upgrade

[D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk]

| From: David Collier-Brown via talk 

| I'm still looking for a scheme that doesn't fail an evil-twin attack (;-))
| 
| I have an apparent neighbor who uses my connection. The use I don't mind much,
| the degree to which my work is public I do  mind.

Evil Twin is just a variant of man-in-the-middle, right?  An "active",
rather than "passive" MITM.

Surely WPA is secure against MITM, including active MITM.

All one needs to prevent MITM is a competent protocol and at least one
end authenticated.  Your strong-enough password provides such
authentication.

(WPS does or did have a weakness if I remember correctly.  My brute
force solution has been to disable WPS.  There may have been fixes.)

Ohh.  KRACK.  WPA2 isn't competent.  I forgot.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk