Re: cannot bring up phpmyadmin in browser, cannot link to mysql
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 23:08:00 +0200 deloptes wrote: > Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > Other piece of advice: I've found that complex software works > > better when installed from a source tarball, with ./config; make > > install. > > Sorry, but this is a complete BS. > > Also reffering to some notes from may be 15y ago does not answer the > question. > > The one which urges to go through the installation steps is a good > one. I would also add that OP should go through the mysql/mariadb > installation notes. > > Most likely it is due to the fact they want to use phpmyadmin with > root access from the web browser, which I think is disabled unless > you set password for root. I'm not sure what version is in the OP's installation. Current MySQL/MariaDb only allows (mysql) root login from a (host) root login i.e. not through phpmyadmin at all, ever. It is necessary to login as root on a terminal on the server, and set up another mysql admin account in order to use phpmyadmin. But if you try root through phpmyadmin, you will be given a clear error message. Seeing no phpmyadmin at all means an installation (or apache2) problem. Apache can also be a fussy beast. -- Joe
Re: fstrim and Luks / dm-raid
Le 05/10/2019 à 21:12, Reco a écrit : The way I heard it, to trigger the corruption one should issue TRIM asynchronously *and* utilize NCQ for it. fstrim is synchronous. Asynchronous and synchronous to what ? To SSD's I/O queue. Can you explain what it means or provide any pointers ?
Re: fstrim and Luks / dm-raid
On Sunday, October 06, 2019 04:32:36 AM Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 05/10/2019 à 21:12, Reco a écrit : > >>> The way I heard it, to trigger the corruption one should issue TRIM > >>> asynchronously *and* utilize NCQ for it. fstrim is synchronous. > >> > >> Asynchronous and synchronous to what ? > > > > To SSD's I/O queue. > > Can you explain what it means or provide any pointers ? Without looking it up, I'll try to explain synchronous and asynchronous in my terms: For things to be synchronous means that they are done in a (prescribed or foreordained) sequence. LIke standing in a bank queue with one teller, customers are taken in order and the business of one customer is finished before the next is started. When things are asynchronous, they don't (necessarily) follow such a sequence, a new customer may be served before the previous is finished, and any customer in the queue may be served in any sequence, before or after the business of some previous customer is finished. I guess, to be synchronous to the SSD's I/O queue means that the requests for service by the SSD are done in a defined sequence, like FIFO (First In, First Out -- service in the order of arrival at the queue -- no jumping the line),
Default Debian install harassed me
Hi. After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or "Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. Here is the video proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE
Root account is locked
good day Debian team, I can access to initial login screen and enter my access password but the enter key (hit( doesn't respond, neither ctrl+F5,..,ctrl+F8, nor any other. I uninstalled rkflashtool that also didn't work but after restart showed a warning to leave the server or not, I hit yes and the then the showed the problem at launch. With safe mode reads "cannot access to console, the root account is locked" Already I've read https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/09/msg00813.html and related asks & questions, but do not find any related of deactivate cntrl key, so I'll appreciate your help I have 4 weeks trying Debian 10 KDE in my Acer aspire 2920 thanks in advance Arturo K
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Sun 06 Oct 2019 at 21:50:54 (+0300), goleo . wrote: > Hi. > > After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) > I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient > to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when > I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or > "Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, > KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. Is that a problem? According to the following, you have a choice between three packages, xarchiver, ark and engrampa: Package: lxqt […] Depends: featherpad, lximage-qt, lxqt-about, lxqt-admin, lxqt-branding-debian | lxqt-branding, lxqt-core (= 29), lxqt-openssh-askpass, lxqt-powermanagement, lxqt-sudo, pavucontrol-qt | pavucontrol, qlipper | clipit | xfce4-clipman, qps, qterminal, qttranslations5-l10n, sddm-theme-debian-elarun | sddm-theme | lightdm | gdm3 | lxdm | slim | nodm, xarchiver | ark | engrampa, xfwm4 | x-window-manager > Here is the video proof: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE Cheers, David.
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: >Hi. > >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient >to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when >I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or >"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, >KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. > >Here is the video proof: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think might be, please? -- Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org Debian Community Team commun...@debian.org
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 21:50:54 +0300 "goleo ." wrote: > Hi. > > After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) > I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient > to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when > I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or > "Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, > KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. Welcone to the Wonderful Hell of Dependencies. I don't have a desktop environment on my systems at all, just xorg, Openbox window manager and lxpanel. xarchiver got installed as a "Recommends" of the xfe file manager suite along with a lot of other stuff xfe uses. Trying to uninstall it once it's installed is an exercise of futility. Personally, I don't use it. It just sits on the system ignored. > Here is the video proof: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE > B
Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
Hi guys, I have this laptop problem to solve: the original windows 10 is kept, shrunk partition to 1TB, originally cryptographied (but now normal). The rest was given to Linux, Debian 10: 800GB root and 8.2GB swap. Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one you want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and vice-versa, then you can boot. Not a good way to keep. Lets give the devices some names. /dev/sda4 is windows 10 /dev/sda5 is debian buster 10 /dev/sda6 is swap Other partitions are the usual that comes with a Windows Dell laptop (boot, backup, etc.) Grub is installed at sda5 with Debian, but when updated it doesn't recognize A Windows partition. Can you point me to a possible howto, blog, set of instructions or even abstract ideas that are in the right direction? My best, -- Dr Beco A.I. researcher "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" -- Alan Greenspan GPG Key: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x5A107A425102382A Creation date: pgp.mit.edu ID as of 2014-11-09
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:45:37 -0300 Beco wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have this laptop problem to solve: the original windows 10 is kept, > shrunk partition to 1TB, originally cryptographied (but now normal). > The rest was given to Linux, Debian 10: 800GB root and 8.2GB swap. > > Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one you > want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and > vice-versa, then you can boot. > > Not a good way to keep. > > Lets give the devices some names. > > /dev/sda4 is windows 10 > /dev/sda5 is debian buster 10 > /dev/sda6 is swap > > Other partitions are the usual that comes with a Windows Dell laptop > (boot, backup, etc.) > > Grub is installed at sda5 with Debian, but when updated it doesn't > recognize A Windows partition. > > Can you point me to a possible howto, blog, set of instructions or > even abstract ideas that are in the right direction? > Installation notes for Debian 10, on the Debian website. I installed stretch (stable at the time) on a Win10 netbook without problems. There is no legacy BIOS in that machine, so Debian had to be installed UEFI and it Just Worked. The grub menu lists the Windows boot manager underneath the Debian entry. There will be a UEFI partition apart from those you named, Windows requires it and Debian can use it. Certainly stretch was UEFI-enabled, so I assume buster is also. -- Joe
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: > >Hi. > > > >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) > >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient > >to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when > >I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or > >"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, > >KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. > > > >Here is the video proof: > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE > > I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think might > be, please? > > -- > Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org > Debian Community Team commun...@debian.org > This is harassment because you force me to use either Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. (Actually I wanted to install PeaZip which you don't provide as a package, so why would I want to keep Xarchiver?) All normal package managers would just remove everything that depends on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting for freedom. If you really fought for freedom, I would have a freedom to just remove what I don't like (Xarchiver) and everything that depends on it (as long as it's not an optional dependency).
Re: Dual boot: one legacy, the other uefi
Le 06/10/2019 à 22:45, Beco a écrit : Now the system can boot both systems ok. But to choose which one you want, you need to enter the BIOS, change legacy to UEFI, and vice-versa, then you can boot. Would you mind telling which systems boots in EFI mode and which one boots in legacy mode ? Not a good way to keep. Some people think otherwise. It is not the most convenient, but it prevents Windows to interfere with GRUB's operation. Lets give the devices some names. /dev/sda4 is windows 10 /dev/sda5 is debian buster 10 /dev/sda6 is swap Grub is installed at sda5 with Debian, but when updated it doesn't recognize A Windows partition. Of course not. Both systems must be set up to boot in the same mode. Can you point me to a possible howto, blog, set of instructions or even abstract ideas that are in the right direction? If Windows boots in EFI mode : Mount the EFI partition on /boot/efi. Install grub-efi-amd64. Boot some Linux media in EFI mode. Chroot into the Debian system, mount the usual pseudo-filesystems (/proc, /dev...) and the EFI partition. Run grub-install. Run update-grub. Done. If Windows boots in legacy mode : Create a partition with "BIOS boot" type. 100 ko is more than enough. Install grub-pc. Done.
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On 2019-10-06 at 17:00, goleo . wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) I >>> noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient to >>> me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when I >>> click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or "Mark for >>> Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, KDE 5 Frameworks and >>> GNUSTEP. >>> >>> Here is the video proof: >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE >> >> I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think >> might be, please? > > This is harassment because you force me to use either Xarchiver or > Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. Of course you have that choice. You just have to remove the metapackage which automatically pulls in everything the LXQT packagers thought should be part of a standard LXQT install, and install whichever depended-on packages you want by hand. Did you even look at the lxqt package to see what it involves? > All normal package managers would just remove everything that depends > on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. The lxqt metapackage does depend on xarchiver. The lxqt-core, lxqt-admin, lxqt-about, lxqt-powermanagement, lxqt-sudo, et cetera, packages - which, unlike lxqt, actually contain files - don't. If you want the convenience of getting all of lxqt through a single package, then you have to accept getting everything the maintainers thought that should pull in. If you don't want all of that "everything", then you can still get just pieces of it; you just don't get to have that convenience. > You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not fighting for > freedom, you just provide separate contrib and non-free repositories > just to make up illusion of fighting fighting for freedom. > > If you really fought for freedom, I would have a freedom to just > remove what I don't like (Xarchiver) and everything that depends on > it (as long as it's not an optional dependency). You're quick to jump to conclusions and fly into a rage, aren't you? (Not to mention: every form of harassment I've ever run across involves being repeatedly contacted by someone else against your wishes. Whatever negative term you may want to choose for the type of poor dependency selection you thought was present in this case, "harassment" certainly shouldn't be it.) -- 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: Root account is locked
Arturo K wrote: > good day Debian team, > Hi, we are not debian team, but the user list. > I can access to initial login screen and enter my access password but the > enter key (hit( doesn't respond, neither ctrl+F5,..,ctrl+F8, nor any > other. > Did you check your keyboard? > I uninstalled rkflashtool that also didn't work but after restart showed a > warning to leave the server or not, I hit yes and the then the showed the > problem at launch. With safe mode reads "cannot access to console, the > root account is locked" > Not clear what you mean by this rkflashtool - how did you uninstall, what server??? IMO you should go to school and learn how to express yourself, although if English is not at good level some things are acceptable, please help understand what you exactly mean > Already I've read > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/09/msg00813.html and related > asks & questions, but do not find any related of deactivate cntrl key, so > I'll appreciate your help > > I have 4 weeks trying Debian 10 KDE in my Acer aspire 2920 > The easiest way is to use debian installation disk/usb drive. Mount the root filesystem and recover the account. (Latest can be done in different ways. I prefer chroot). Last time I did resque a PC/server with lost root password, I just removed the pwd hash from the /etc/passwd file. I am not sure if things have changed recently. regards
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
goleo . wrote: > You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not > fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and > non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting > for freedom. by saying this you are describing your self at the same moment. Feel free to start your own linux distribution and make things better, also feel free to choose another better one. No one is forcing you to use Debian and honestly I do not understand how you can use this language in public. My advise to you: go back to school and visit your doctor
Re: Email based attack on University
On 5/10/19 1:22 am, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 07:03:59PM +1000, Keith Bainbridge wrote: I wonder if having /home on a 'noexec' partition would stop this attack, please? I don't know specifically about this attack, but noexec is trivial to circumvent. Here's three ways: bash -c "~/whatever" cp ~/whatever /tmp && /tmp/whatever /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 ~/whatever Well I think the bash line means that the bash command uses ~/whatever as data (which it could do without the x switch?) like any program does with data files. I wasn't aware of this. I read later the the -c is not necessary, and wonder if the "s are necessary. I see that cp to /tmp will get around the noexec. Am now wondering how I can use that process to my advantage elsewhere. The 3rd suggestion is still a mystery. Then to get away from sudo. But su -c doesn't work the way I expected. Back soon Thanks to all who have contributed to an enlightening discussion. -- Keith Bainbridge keithrbaugro...@gmail.com +61 (0)447 667 468
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:00:11AM +0300, goleo . wrote: >On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: >> >Hi. >> > >> >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) >> >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient >> >to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when >> >I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or >> >"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, >> >KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. >> > >> >Here is the video proof: >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE >> >> I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think might > >This is harassment because you force me to use either >Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. >(Actually I wanted to install PeaZip which you don't provide >as a package, so why would I want to keep Xarchiver?) > >All normal package managers would just remove everything >that depends on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. > >You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not >fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and >non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting >for freedom. > >If you really fought for freedom, I would have a freedom to >just remove what I don't like (Xarchiver) and everything that >depends on it (as long as it's not an optional dependency). Two points: 1. If you don't like the dependencies in the packaging system, there are multiple better ways to deal with this. File bugs, or work around this with tools like equivs. Ranting about imagined "harassment" here is not gaining you anything. 2. Being instantly abusive is a great way to lose any sympathy people might have for you. - you're asking people to write off any valid points you might have and ignore you in future. This is the end of the discussion here for me. -- Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org Debian Community Team commun...@debian.org
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:08 AM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:00:11AM +0300, goleo . wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: > >> >Hi. > >> > > >> >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) > >> >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient > >> >to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when > >> >I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or > >> >"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, > >> >KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. > >> > > >> >Here is the video proof: > >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE > >> > >> I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think might > > > >This is harassment because you force me to use either > >Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. > >(Actually I wanted to install PeaZip which you don't provide > >as a package, so why would I want to keep Xarchiver?) > > > >All normal package managers would just remove everything > >that depends on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. > > > >You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not > >fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and > >non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting > >for freedom. > > > >If you really fought for freedom, I would have a freedom to > >just remove what I don't like (Xarchiver) and everything that > >depends on it (as long as it's not an optional dependency). > > Two points: > > 1. If you don't like the dependencies in the packaging system, there > are multiple better ways to deal with this. File bugs, or work > around this with tools like equivs. Ranting about imagined > "harassment" here is not gaining you anything. > Wow, that's a really retarded response. That's not a bug because you intentionally harass everyone by forcing to install X when someone removes Y. Asshole. > 2. Being instantly abusive is a great way to lose any sympathy people > might have for you. - you're asking people to write off any valid > points you might have and ignore you in future. > Liar, you are the one being abusive. I am being rude for a right reason. > This is the end of the discussion here for me. > > -- > Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org > Debian Community Team commun...@debian.org >
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:46:53AM +0300, goleo . wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:08 AM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Two points: > > > > 1. If you don't like the dependencies in the packaging system, there > > are multiple better ways to deal with this. File bugs, or work > > around this with tools like equivs. Ranting about imagined > > "harassment" here is not gaining you anything. > > > > Wow, that's a really retarded response. That's not a bug because > you intentionally harass ^^ You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. > everyone by forcing to install X when > someone removes Y. Asshole. > Incidentally, your response here is an example of the abusive behavior Steve was advising you to avoid. > > 2. Being instantly abusive is a great way to lose any sympathy people > > might have for you. - you're asking people to write off any valid > > points you might have and ignore you in future. > > > > Liar, you are the one being abusive. This too. > I am being rude for a right reason. > Your self-description of being rude is absolutely correct. Apart from that, you are self-righteous; there is a vast difference between that and being right (which, incidentally, you are not). Mind you, all you've managed to accomplish is to incite some folks to suggest ways to work around the behavior you encountered, ways you can make improvements to Debian yourself, and ways to better approach volunteers to get your problem addressed. In return, all you've done is continue your abusive behavior. I am not a fortune teller, but it seems that unless you make a drastic change in your approach nothing will improve for you. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On 10/6/19 9:16 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: Your self-description of being rude is absolutely correct. Apart from that, you are self-righteous; there is a vast difference between that and being right (which, incidentally, you are not). Mind you, all you've managed to accomplish is to incite some folks to suggest ways to work around the behavior you encountered, ways you can make improvements to Debian yourself, and ways to better approach volunteers to get your problem addressed. In return, all you've done is continue your abusive behavior. I am not a fortune teller, but it seems that unless you make a drastic change in your approach nothing will improve for you. From his writing style, I get the feeling goleo is a young teen, perhaps someone who learned social skills in a multiplayer game online. -- Carl Fink nitpick...@nitpicking.com Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Re: Email based attack on University
Hello, On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 08:05:27AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, October 03, 2019 06:23:20 AM Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > There have been numerous bugs with LookOut (otherwise known as > > Outlook), running scripts and having other vulnerabilities due to > > preview pane being open. […] > I suppose then, that the same vulnerabilities that you allude to > are present in (at least older versions of) kmail? I think it's important to realise that large organisations tend to enforce a monoculture of office productivity and email applications. These tend to be large and complex software packages which harbour many bugs and opportunities for security compromise. There have been many incidents of the large office suites having flaws that execute content, even sometimes without any user action beyond some sort of email preview. This will continue to happen. Web-based email may even have a better security story, as the browser security model has at least had a lot of thought applied to it over time as opposed to standalone large executables. Realistically therefore, if there was an enterprise mandating a Linux desktop and mail package to all its users, we probably would still continue to find security bugs in that email application that did not rely on the user following a link or maybe not even explicitly opening a media attachment. You would have to assume such bugs are present, though possibly as yet undiscovered. Every large monoculture installation is waiting for their own specific 0-day exploit. As previously noted in this thread, blocking execution from the /home filesystem tree would not help here as in this case it would either be the email application or a media handler it launches doing the executing. There are other security features available in Linux, such as SELinux and AppArmor, which seek to limit the privileges of binaries. Conceivably a rigorous use of these could really lock down a desktop and productivity suite to be much harder to break into. For example, a media viewer/player could be restricted from writing to the filesystem or making network calls. My experience is that very few organisations are willing to spend the time to define such policies, and in truth I rarely do either, much beyond what comes as default with the OS. Some even disable them entirely. But at least the feature is there, and that's the sort of thing that would be worth exploring if someone is seriously wanting to lock down this sort of big desktop deployment. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
debian-user@lists.debian.org
Folks, I have been using Debian 9 in a multi-boot setup for quite some time with a great deal of satisfaction. The basic set up was: Windows 7 (for the infrequent use by other family members) Debian 9 (living on /dev/sda5; used very often by me for work) Siduction (living on /dev/sda8; mainly for goofing off and experimentation) Note: /home is on a separate partition for some of the obvious reasons. I was able to multi-boot between these very nicely with a minimum of fuss. Recently I figured that I should move across to Debian 10 and take advantage of updates and other progress-like stuff. I decided to install Debian 10 onto /dev/sda8 (stomp over Siduction) and transition to it gradually from Debian 9 - in my mind a fairly reasonable plan. The installation went fairly steadily, as I would have expected based on past experience. The installer reached the point where the other operating system were detected (a good sign to me); interestingly the displayed information said that grub would set up one other OS along with the current installed system Debian 10. I went ahead and completed the installation and got Debian 10 to boot successfully. However (don't you hate the word?), when trying out the other multi-boot options I found that the pre-existing Debian 9 would not boot - the Windows 7 booted OK. The choice for selecting and booting from Debian 9 was being presented but when selected there is just a blank screen and a flashing cursor. I'm guessing that Grub might have chosen to ignore Debian 9 (a generous excuse) or something else has gone astray. I have attached the grub.cfg files from the Debian 9 and Debian 10 installations; I don't have the background (or time and willingness to become a grub expert) to examine these for meaningful differences. I'm hoping that they may be more enlightening to you folk. What I would appreciate very much: 1. Some simple and straightforward instruction on how to enable the grub booting mechanism to allow me to boot Debian 9. If it was doable before, it should be doable now. 2. Not to expend an excessive amount of time going to and fro trying out poorly conceived suggestions. 3. I would hope that this might inform you of a possible malfunction in the structure of the Debian installer and that it can be remedied successfully - as said before, this wasn't an issue in the past. This was something of an unexpected and 'bummer' outcome; I have enjoyed using Debian in the past and look forward to using it in the future. So far my enthusiasm for Debian/Linux is not dented. Cheers Paul D. grub.cfg.d9 Description: Binary data grub.cfg.d10 Description: Binary data
