Re: why symbolic link arnt visible?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 01:28:11PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 07:06:17PM +0200, Maurizio Caloro wrote: > > f: /var/lib/rancid/routers/configs > > drwxr-xr-x root root / > > drwxr-xr-x root root var > > drwxr-xr-x root root lib > > drwxr-xr-x rancid rancid

Re: why symbolic link arnt visible?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 07:06:17PM +0200, Maurizio Caloro wrote: > Hello and thanks for so meny answer > > f: / > drwxr-xr-x root root / [...] > drwxr-x--- 4 rancid rancid 4096 Apr 27 18:44 /var/lib/rancid/routers > drwxr-x--- 2 rancid rancid 4096 Apr 27 18:44 ^^^ And here is your

Re: why symbolic link arnt visible?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 07:06:17PM +0200, Maurizio Caloro wrote: > f: /var/lib/rancid/routers/configs > drwxr-xr-x root root / > drwxr-xr-x root root var > drwxr-xr-x root root lib > drwxr-xr-x rancid rancid rancid > drwxr-x--- rancid rancid routers > drwxr-x--- rancid rancid configs

Re: why symbolic link arnt visible?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 06:53:11AM +0200, Maurizio Caloro wrote: > (Unattributed:) > >Could you do ls -l to /var/lib/rancid, /var/lib/rancid/routers and so on > >until .../c3560? > Every file in this path "-R rancid:randic /var/lib/rancid" Please actually show us. Use either of these two

Re: why symbolic link arnt visible?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 06:53:11AM +0200, Maurizio Caloro wrote: > Thanks for you answer > > >I'm guessing what you mean by "will not appear": the web server doesn't show > >it. > Yes the Webserver Apache will not present the symbolic link folder > > >My first hunch would be that the web server

Re: why symbolic link arnt visible?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 08:21:29PM +0200, Maurizio Caloro wrote: > Troubling little with apache2, test1234 are visible, but the symbolic link > folder will not appair? > > Thanks for possible update > > > > Deian 10 / Apache 2.4.56 (Debian) > > > > root@ovo:/var/www/html/cvsweb# ls -la >

Re: Why Debian packaging structure is so difficult

On 09/01/2023 13:20, Sadhu Santh wrote: If not, why the upstream structure is not made simpler? If I remember correctly, current repository layout minimizes traffic at the moment of new release. .deb packages are already synced as a part of testing suite. Almost certainly it is explained

Re: Why Debian packaging structure is so difficult

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 01:59:50PM +0530, Sadhu Santh wrote: > > > > I am hosting a local Debian mirror for my LAN. This helps in low internet > > > bandwidth use. > > > > > > I keep only the required distributions (past five years and testing > > > release). > > > > > > Compared to other

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On 1/10/23 21:17, Charles Curley wrote: Interesting. Running "modprobe rfkill" wouldn't return anything because the module is already installed. However, I get a slightly different result from the lsmod command: root@jhegaala:~# lsmod | grep rfkill rfkill 32768 7

Re: Why Debian packaging structure is so difficult

On 09/01/23 17:48, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 11:50:23AM +0530, Sadhu Santh wrote: Hi, I am hosting a local Debian mirror for my LAN. This helps in low internet bandwidth use. I keep only the required distributions (past five years and testing release). Compared to

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 19:31:40 +0800 lsg wrote: > Thank Alexander! i run lsmod | grep -iE "rfkill", it says > > rfkill 20480  2 cfg80211 > > both "modprobe rfkill" and rfkill return nothing Interesting. Running "modprobe rfkill" wouldn't return anything because the module is

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

actually i want to use rfkill to block or unblock device is it possible to do it with wireless-tools?

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On 1/10/23 18:10, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: In that case check if "rfkill" kernel module is actually loaded, because it is necessary for rfkill utility to function:     $ lsmod | grep -iE "rfkill" Use "modprobe" utulity to load it:     $ sudo modprobe rfkill It is possible that driver

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On 10.01.2023 12:33, lsg wrote: On 1/10/23 15:26, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: For this adapter, according to Wireless Wiki [1], you should use universal driver "rtl8xxxu". See if it was loaded:     $ sudo lsusb -t ... Thank Alexander! actually my usb wifi adapter works well in buster but

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

Leandro Noferini writes: > Now you need to compile the relative module for your adapter. Sarry, this part of my message remained in my keyboard: I found this – Ciao leandro

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

lsg writes: > On 1/10/23 14:51, Leandro Noferini wrote: >> >> I think for this adapter you need to use the dkms kernel modules: >> >> >> – >> Ciao >> leandro > > Thank Leandro! dkms has been installed Now you need to compile the relative module for

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On 1/10/23 15:26, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: For this adapter, according to Wireless Wiki [1], you should use universal driver "rtl8xxxu". See if it was loaded:     $ sudo lsusb -t Check out the logs for relevant messages:     $ sudo grep -iE "rtl|firmware" /var/log/syslog This should

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On 10.01.2023 09:54, lsg wrote: Thank Charles! it's usb wifi adapter, lsusb shows Bus 001 Device 005: ID 0bda:8179 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. RTL8188EUS 802.11n Wireless Network Adapter rfkill shows nothing For this adapter, according to Wireless Wiki [1], you should use universal driver

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On 1/10/23 14:51, Leandro Noferini wrote: I think for this adapter you need to use the dkms kernel modules: – Ciao leandro Thank Leandro! dkms has been installed root@debian:~# apt install dkms Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

lsg writes: > On 1/10/23 12:25, Charles Curley wrote: > it’s usb wifi adapter, lsusb shows > > Bus 001 Device 005: ID 0bda:8179 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. RTL8188EUS > 802.11n > Wireless Network Adapter > > rfkill shows nothing I think for this adapter you need to use the dkms kernel

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On 1/10/23 12:25, Charles Curley wrote: What hardware? A suitable lspci list might help. Mine shows: root@jhegaala:~# rfkill ID TYPE DEVICE SOFT HARD 0 bluetooth tpacpi_bluetooth_sw blocked unblocked 3 wlan phy2unblocked unblocked

Re: why rfkill not list my wifi device

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 11:51:54 +0800 lsg wrote: > according to web page by expert, rfkill without options shall list > wireless device, but it shows nothing though my wifi adapter is > active in buster > What hardware? A suitable lspci list might help. Mine shows: root@jhegaala:~# rfkill ID

Re: Why Debian packaging structure is so difficult

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 07:35:18 -0700 Charles Curley wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 07:18:53 -0500 > Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > The best solution, IMHO, is to mirror using a tool that is aware of > > the specific structure of apt repositories. Personally, I have had > > excellent success with

Re: Why Debian packaging structure is so difficult

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 07:18:53 -0500 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > The best solution, IMHO, is to mirror using a tool that is aware of > the specific structure of apt repositories. Personally, I have had > excellent success with apt-cacher-ng, which functions much like a > squid proxy. You

Re: Why Debian packaging structure is so difficult

On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 11:50:23AM +0530, Sadhu Santh wrote: > Hi, > > I am hosting a local Debian mirror for my LAN. This helps in low internet > bandwidth use. > > I keep only the required distributions (past five years and testing > release). > > Compared to other distributions such

Re: why some memory are missing

On 1/8/23 17:36, hede wrote: I'm pretty sure it can address 2^32 bit aka 4 GB. But within this range there is the PCI address space.  PCI cards are memory mapped. To access memory regions on PCI devices you can simply access main memory. But you cannot access PCI devices AND use full 4 GB

Re: why some memory are missing

Am 08.01.2023 00:30, schrieb Jeremy Hendricks: I imagine it’s a bios limitation and it cannot address the full 4GB even though it’s a 64bit CPU. This was common with the Intel 925/945 chipsets even through they supported Intel 64bit CPUs of the time. I'm pretty sure it can address 2^32 bit aka

Re: why some memory are missing

No problem. It was very common “back in my day” On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 7:10 PM lsg wrote: > > On 1/8/23 07:30, Jeremy Hendricks wrote: > > I imagine it’s a bios limitation and it cannot address the full 4GB even > though it’s a 64bit CPU. This was common with the Intel 925/945 chipsets > even

Re: why some memory are missing

On 1/8/23 07:30, Jeremy Hendricks wrote: I imagine it’s a bios limitation and it cannot address the full 4GB even though it’s a 64bit CPU. This was common with the Intel 925/945 chipsets even through they supported Intel 64bit CPUs of the time. Thank Jeremy Hendricks! it seems to me

Re: why some memory are missing

I imagine it’s a bios limitation and it cannot address the full 4GB even though it’s a 64bit CPU. This was common with the Intel 925/945 chipsets even through they supported Intel 64bit CPUs of the time. On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 6:08 PM lsg wrote: > Thank Greg Wooledge! > > i've tried bullseye

Re: why some memory are missing

Thank Greg Wooledge! i've tried bullseye for amd64, it doesn't help memtest86+ claims it can test all memory

Re: why some memory are missing

On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 06:49:01AM +0800, lsg wrote: > i have hp dx5150, running buster > > bios shows 4G memory, but in buster, top shows 3282.8M Google gives me which says HP's DX5150 comes in a variety of configurations. The base model ships with a

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 10:06:08AM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote: > On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 13:26:14 +0100 > Brian wrote: > > >Reasons for the perceived "ignored" status might be: [...] > No, these are (more or less reasonable) grounds for not getting *to > work* on some potential issue, and that is

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 13:26:14 +0100 Brian wrote: >Reasons for the perceived "ignored" status might be: > > * The maintainer judges that the bug affects very few users. > * The maintainer does not have the resources to deal with the bug. > * A solution is already in hand and awaiting upload to

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 04:20:21PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On 8/20/2022 2:06 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: [...] > > But note that *you* can help, by taking on some of the work, looking for > > bugs that haven't gotten an answer yet and trying to address them. > > That's a fair point. It

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 8/20/22 4:28 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > Chuck Zmudzinski [2022-08-20 16:20:21] wrote: > > That's a fair point. It may not be so easy for me to work on a bug that > > does not affect > > my systems, but I am willing to help with bugs important to the Debian > > project now, as > > the

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 8/20/2022 2:06 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > So that means "free" software written and maintained by volunteers will > > never be as > > stable and secure as software that is written by people who are paid by the > > hour. > > Not necessarily. Have you filed a bug report about a problem you

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Sat 20 Aug 2022 at 16:13:29 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 15:22:27 +0100 > Brian wrote: > > Hello Brian, > > >On Sat 20 Aug 2022 at 09:06:54 -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > >> On 8/20/2022 1:25 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > >> Usually upstream projects want and

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 11:14:27AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: [...] > > So they will allocate their resources accordingly. I've worked > > in the belly of big corps for a while and I assure you that my > > boss wouldn't allow me to fix a bug unless (s)he could justify > > to their bosses

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 8/20/2022 1:25 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:06:38PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > On 8/19/2022 4:44 PM, piorunz wrote: > > > On 19/08/2022 18:57, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > > > > > > I have noticed that some Debian bugs are ignored for a long time [...] > > > >

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 15:22:27 +0100 Brian wrote: Hello Brian, >On Sat 20 Aug 2022 at 09:06:54 -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: >> On 8/20/2022 1:25 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: >> Usually upstream projects want and expect users to report bugs to >> the distro, not to the upstream project, for

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 03:22:27PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 20 Aug 2022 at 09:06:54 -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > Usually upstream projects want and expect users to report bugs to > > the distro, not to the upstream project, for many good reasons that I > > need not explain here. > > You

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Sat 20 Aug 2022 at 09:06:54 -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On 8/20/2022 1:25 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > I get you want to contribute? > > Yes, that's what mystifies me. I don't know why Debian ignores > someone who wants to contribute time to help the project. > > In another

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 8/20/2022 1:25 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:06:38PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > On 8/19/2022 4:44 PM, piorunz wrote: > > > On 19/08/2022 18:57, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > > > > > > I have noticed that some Debian bugs are ignored for a long time [...] > > > >

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Fri 19 Aug 2022 at 13:57:29 -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > Hello, > > I have noticed that some Debian bugs are ignored for a long time, > sometimes even when the person who submitted the bug offered a patch. > The Debian developers/maintainers sometimes don't even reply and > therefore

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 19/08/2022 22:06, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: So that means "free" software written and maintained by volunteers will never be as stable and secure as software that is written by people who are paid by the hour. That is, Debian software can *never* be as stable and secure as software that is

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

* 2022-08-19 17:06:38-0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On 8/19/2022 4:44 PM, piorunz wrote: >> Maybe because developers/maintainers are not paid by the hour, but >> mere volunteers, don't you think? > > So that means "free" software written and maintained by volunteers > will never be as stable

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:06:38PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On 8/19/2022 4:44 PM, piorunz wrote: > > On 19/08/2022 18:57, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > > > > I have noticed that some Debian bugs are ignored for a long time [...] > > > > Hi Chuck, > > > > Maybe because developers/maintainers

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 8/19/2022 9:18 PM, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 08:20:21PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > On 8/19/2022 6:59 PM, Andy Smith wrote: > > > Volunteers cannot be forced to do work, else they are not > > > volunteers. > > > > The fact that Debian is created by

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

Chuck Zmudzinski writes: > On 8/19/2022 6:59 PM, Andy Smith wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:06:38PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: >> > On 8/19/2022 4:44 PM, piorunz wrote: >> > > On 19/08/2022 18:57, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: >> > > > I have noticed that some Debian bugs are

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

Hi Chuck, On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 08:20:21PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On 8/19/2022 6:59 PM, Andy Smith wrote: > > Volunteers cannot be forced to do work, else they are not > > volunteers. > > The fact that Debian is created by volunteers and therefore the chances are > high that users

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 8/19/2022 6:59 PM, Andy Smith wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:06:38PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > On 8/19/2022 4:44 PM, piorunz wrote: > > > On 19/08/2022 18:57, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > > > I have noticed that some Debian bugs are ignored for a long time, > > > >

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

Hello, On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 05:06:38PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On 8/19/2022 4:44 PM, piorunz wrote: > > On 19/08/2022 18:57, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > > I have noticed that some Debian bugs are ignored for a long time, > > > sometimes even when the person who submitted the bug

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 8/19/2022 6:43 PM, Timothy M Butterworth wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 6:40 PM Chuck Zmudzinski > wrote: > > On 8/19/2022 6:20 PM, Timothy M Butterworth wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:07 PM Chuck Zmudzinski > wrote: > > > >     On 8/19/2022 4:44

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 8/19/2022 4:44 PM, piorunz wrote: > On 19/08/2022 18:57, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > > I have noticed that some Debian bugs are ignored for a long time, sometimes > > even when the person who submitted the bug offered a patch. The Debian > > developers/maintainers sometimes don't even reply

Re: Why are some Debian bugs ignored for a long time?

On 19/08/2022 18:57, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: I have noticed that some Debian bugs are ignored for a long time, sometimes even when the person who submitted the bug offered a patch. The Debian developers/maintainers sometimes don't even reply and therefore never explain why the proposed patch

Re: Why is systemd starting Firefox?

On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 08:30:50 +0200 Kamil Jońca wrote: > local10 writes: > > > > > # systemctl list-units | grep -i firefox > > what is the result of: > $systemctl --user list-units > > (as a regular user) > > http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html Oops! Could not find the desired

Re: Why do experimental packages (e.g. clang-13) get in unstable?

It has a serial connector, so I can get LIRC running again. I start studying my self programmed LIRC powered remote control system back to use. [LIRC is the tool for re-use my old self-programmed TV remote controls Always handy, a free tool to be able to get more remote controls in the house,

Re: Why is systemd starting Firefox?

local10 writes: > > # systemctl list-units | grep -i firefox what is the result of: $systemctl --user list-units (as a regular user) -- http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html

Re: Why do experimental packages (e.g. clang-13) get in unstable?

Thanks for the reminder I have a still spare thin client free for testing. I could use this one for learning bug-fixing. I'll start reading the mailing lists more carefully. Arne On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 23:11:50 +0100 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2022-01-15 18:33:23 +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

Re: Why is systemd starting Firefox?

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 21:17:50 +0100 (CET) local10 wrote: > Jan 23, 2022, 19:15 by songb...@anthive.com: > > > what desktop are you running? > > > > it may be set up in your desktop to automatically be started. > > > > Am using KDE. Don't have any tasks in KDE Autostart. > > Regards, >

Re: Why is heyu not in debian?

On Monday, 30 May 2022 11:18:34 EDT David Wright wrote: > On Mon 30 May 2022 at 11:00:50 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote: > > On 2022-05-30 at 10:49, gene heskett wrote: > > > I have been useing it, or writing its functions to talk to a cm-11a > > > interface to all the X10 modules for remoting and

Re: Why is heyu not in debian?

On Monday, 30 May 2022 11:00:50 EDT The Wanderer wrote: > On 2022-05-30 at 10:49, gene heskett wrote: > > Greetings all; > > > > I have been useing it, or writing its functions to talk to a cm-11a > > interface to all the X10 modules for remoting and automating things > > about the house, since

Re: Why is heyu not in debian?

On Mon 30 May 2022 at 11:00:50 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote: > On 2022-05-30 at 10:49, gene heskett wrote: > > > I have been useing it, or writing its functions to talk to a cm-11a > > interface to all the X10 modules for remoting and automating things > > about the house, since back in the 80's.

Re: Why is heyu not in debian?

On 2022-05-30 at 10:49, gene heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > I have been useing it, or writing its functions to talk to a cm-11a > interface to all the X10 modules for remoting and automating things > about the house, since back in the 80's. Suffering from 2, 2T seagate > failures in the

Re: Why does this take so much time?

Le 23-04-2022, à 17:01:22 +0100, Eric S Fraga a écrit : On Friday, 22 Apr 2022 at 19:37, Charles Curley wrote: I was in a position to help, so I did. I have not so far heard back from Steve whether he has found a solution. Just to add a data point, probably mostly for the benefit of the OP:

Re: Why does this take so much time?

On Friday, 22 Apr 2022 at 19:37, Charles Curley wrote: > I was in a position to help, so I did. I have not so far heard back > from Steve whether he has found a solution. Just to add a data point, probably mostly for the benefit of the OP: I use Signal and have the same source in my list for apt

Re: Why does this take so much time?

Le 23-04-2022, à 07:13:32 -0600, Charles Curley a écrit : On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 11:06:29 +0200 steve wrote: cat signal-xenial.list deb [arch=amd64] https://updates.signal.org/desktop/apt xenial main The keyring thing missing was I added it, but it didn't change anything, update still lags.

Re: Why does this take so much time?

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 11:06:29 +0200 steve wrote: > cat signal-xenial.list > deb [arch=amd64] https://updates.signal.org/desktop/apt xenial main > > The keyring thing missing was I added it, but it didn't change > anything, update still lags. But upgrade goes quickly. OK, just an idea. Are you

Re: Why does this take so much time?

Hi, Thanks to everyone for the help, and I know I'm a bit off topic here with this Signal thing, sorry. It's the only Franken thing on my box. But, I thought maybe someone was also using Signal on their Debian box and could help. In fact this lag when updating in pretty new, but I cannot say

Re: Why does this take so much time?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:46:39 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > Thanks for stepping in with concrete help - it's good that we had > someone else running Signal to help. I was in a position to help, so I did. I have not so far heard back from Steve whether he has found a solution. > I think the

Re: Why does this take so much time?

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:17:27PM -0600, Charles Curley wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:48:06 + > "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > > > Mixing .deb packages from multiple Debian/Debian-derived > > distributions is normally a very bad idea - > > https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian > > In

Re: Why does this take so much time?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:48:06 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > Mixing .deb packages from multiple Debian/Debian-derived > distributions is normally a very bad idea - > https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian In general I agree with this. However, this is what the signal folks tell Debian users

Re: Why does this take so much time?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:26:47 +0200 steve wrote: > When I 'apt update', the following URL takes ages: > > Atteint :2 https://updates.signal.org/desktop/apt xenial InRelease > > Why? Do you see the same? As luck would have it, I just had an update for signal (5.40) waiting for me. I saw no

Re: Why does this take so much time?

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:26:47PM +0200, steve wrote: > > Hi, > > > When I 'apt update', the following URL takes ages: > > Atteint :2 https://updates.signal.org/desktop/apt xenial InRelease > > Why? Do you see the same? > > Best, > > s > Hi steve, Sorry: This is a third party .deb

Re: why some wifi connection method is better than other

Thank tomas! i'm mistaken, gnome can't connect to weak wifi network too though cell phone can use it, but it's unstable, sometime it disconnects

Re: why some wifi connection method is better than other

On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 01:56:19AM -0400, lou wrote: > Thanks! > > it's same hardware, bullseye is in hard disk while opensuse live image is > copied to usb disk You might want to issue a "sudo iwconfig" in a shell under both environments and compare their outputs. Perhaps they are using

Re: why some wifi connection method is better than other

Thanks! it's same hardware, bullseye is in hard disk while opensuse live image is copied to usb disk

Re: why some wifi connection method is better than other

a writes: > to setup wifi, i edit /etc/network/interfaces in bullseye and run > ifup/ifdown to take effect > > iface wlx12345 inet dhcp >     wpa-ssid netgear >     wpa-key-mgmt NONE > > it works if wifi signals is good > > if wifi signals is 2 on scale of 3 shown by cell phone, it can't

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On 3/27/22, Greg Wooledge wrote: > Well, you are. Just not in the normal way. On 3/27/22, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Debian Live /is/ a dual boot -- unless the computer in question > has no operating system to begin with :-) > > I think there is some misunderstanding on how songbird and you >

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On Sun 27 Mar 2022 at 18:29:35 (+), Albretch Mueller wrote: > On 3/27/22, songbird wrote: > > set the bios time to be universal and then set up windows > > to use universal time. > > again, assumptions ... > > On 3/27/22, David Wright wrote: > > It looks as if you're dual-booting. > >

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 06:29:35PM +, Albretch Mueller wrote: > On 3/27/22, David Wright wrote: > > It looks as if you're dual-booting. > > No, I am not. Well, you are. Just not in the normal way. You've got one OS permanently installed on the disk, and one on a removable device. That's

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 06:29:35PM +, Albretch Mueller wrote: > On 3/27/22, songbird wrote: > > set the bios time to be universal and then set up windows > > to use universal time. > > again, assumptions ... > > On 3/27/22, David Wright wrote: > > It looks as if you're dual-booting. >

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On 3/27/22, songbird wrote: > set the bios time to be universal and then set up windows > to use universal time. again, assumptions ... On 3/27/22, David Wright wrote: > It looks as if you're dual-booting. No, I am not. Use case: I keep a DL DVD with me as some sort of cross between

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On Sun 27 Mar 2022 at 06:31:16 (+), Albretch Mueller wrote: > $ uname -a > Linux debian 5.10.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.84-1 (2021-12-08) > x86_64 GNU/Linux > $ > and how can I avoid that from happening? It looks as if you're dual-booting. Whenever I've had a period of doing that, I start

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

Albretch Mueller wrote: > $ uname -a > Linux debian 5.10.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.84-1 (2021-12-08) > x86_64 GNU/Linux > $ > and how can I avoid that from happening? > lbrtchx set the bios time to be universal and then set up windows to use universal time. and no, i don't know how to

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On 3/27/22, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:08:38PM +, Albretch Mueller wrote: >> On 3/27/22, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: >> > (3) Hardware clock gets adjusted accordingly. >> > [which] would be >> > wrong for a live distro: don't touch persistent state! >> >> exactly! will

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:08:38PM +, Albretch Mueller wrote: > On 3/27/22, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > (3) Hardware clock gets adjusted accordingly. > > [which] would be > > wrong for a live distro: don't touch persistent state! > > exactly! will this set up "logic" be fixed for the next

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On 3/27/22, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > (3) Hardware clock gets adjusted accordingly. > [which] would be > wrong for a live distro: don't touch persistent state! exactly! will this set up "logic" be fixed for the next live systems? lbrtchx

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

Hi, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Perhaps, but perhaps it shouldn't /set/ the hardware clock. [...] > If my analysis is correct (big if, I know :), step (3) would be > wrong for a live distro: don't touch persistent state! Ideally, yes. But man timedatectl already warns of set-local-rtc 1 and offers

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:22:07AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Albretch Mueller wrote: > > The use of a live DVD at times is > > necessary, but part of very idea of going live is not altering, having > > to alter the hard- or firmware, right? > > That's a valid point. It should be

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

Hi, Albretch Mueller wrote: > The use of a live DVD at times is > necessary, but part of very idea of going live is not altering, having > to alter the hard- or firmware, right? That's a valid point. It should be discussed on debian-live, i guess. Google shows me that the problem can be avoided

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On 3/27/22, David Christensen wrote: > I have a desktop machine (Intel DQ67SW motherboard) with a 2.5" SATA > trayless drive rack that I boot with various OS's on 2.5" SATA SSD's. I > have to remember to enter Setup and adjust the CMOS clock every time I > switch between a FOSS OS and Windows.

Re: Why is debian Live (11.2.0) advancing the time on my windows laptop +5 hours? ...

On 3/26/22 23:31, Albretch Mueller wrote: $ uname -a Linux debian 5.10.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.84-1 (2021-12-08) x86_64 GNU/Linux $ and how can I avoid that from happening? lbrtchx I have a desktop machine (Intel DQ67SW motherboard) with a 2.5" SATA trayless drive rack that I boot

Re: why pdf viewer is missing in firefox for bullseye?

Thank Cater! actually firefox for debian 11 can view my local pdf file maybe those web sites with PDF files set MIME type incorrectly

Re: why pdf viewer is missing in firefox for bullseye?

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 04:02:44PM -0500, lou wrote: > how to install pdf plugin? > > firefox for old debian distro can open pdf file > > > According to the Firefox release notes from Mozilla, firefox now includes its own pdf viewer - click on the link or open it in your Downloads folder

Re: why copying big file fails?

Thank Michael! i install go-mtpfs for i386 and it can copy 4G file, and i can check progress with "ls -l" strange thing about go-mtpfs is you'd better add & at end of command go-mtpfs seems faster than jmtpfs

Re: why copying big file fails?

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:53:00PM +0300, Reco wrote: Hi. On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 03:11:36PM -0500, a wrote: i run "ls -l", about 2G has been copied This. Method you're using for copying files does not matter. Whatever your phone is using instead of a proper filesystem does. 2G file

Re: why copying big file fails?

Hi. On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:23:12PM +0100, Hans wrote: > Am Sonntag, 30. Januar 2022, 21:53:00 CET schrieb Reco: > > > > BTW which package in bullseye can play mp4? > > > > mpv or vlc. Everything else is not a media player anyway. > > Hmm... > I had very good success with

Re: why copying big file fails?

Thank ghe2001, Andrew, Reco, Hans and Thomas! i try bullseye for amd64, as Andrew suggest, it succeeds in copying 4G mp4 video transfer speed is slow, i have to wait for half an hour after entering cp command and i can't check progress by running "ls -l" in other terminal ("ls -l" shows

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >