Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:37:39 +0100 Hans wrote: > > You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > > designed to then connect that AP to the rest of the network, so > > that the AP is useful to wifi-only devices, but you can just > > ignore that. > > > > Example at: > > > > http://souktha.github.io/misc/create-ap-linuxpc/ > > > > Cheers, > > David. > > Hi David, > > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will > be then again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, a > software router is sklower than a hardware device). > Allegedly, Network Manager can make an 'ad-hoc' wifi interface, but this seems to be problematic for some people. It's worth a try, and it can be done without NM. NM can certainly create a 'hotspot', or simple access point, as I have done that without difficulty. -- Joe
Re: Has anyone noticed Bluetooth stop functioning on recent kernels?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 4:35 PM Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > I have a Beelink EQR6 running bookworm, and which has a Bluetooth > chipset. Yesterday I tried to turn on Bluetooth (as I don't normally > leave it enabled) and it wouldn't turn on. The only thing that appears > in the log is this: > > gnome-control-c[985685]: BluetoothHardwareAirplaneMode: 0 > > I tried switching it on from Gnome control center several times, but to > no avail. > > I was booted into linux-image-6.1.0-32-amd64 when I noticed this. I > tried rebooting into linux-image-6.1.0-31-amd64 and the behavior was the > same. Then I booted into linux-image-6.1.0-30-amd64 and Bluetooth worked > again. > > There was not anything I was able to find in the BTS, so I'm curious if > others have encountered this particular issue. The first thing to do when you have radio problems is update the firmware. The problem with Beelink is, they often don't provide firmware updates. Some Beelink models have them, but many do not. Jeff
Re: Spurious emails from somewhere in "Debian hierarchy"
On Sat 29 Mar 2025 at 05:36:46 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 3/28/25 11:29 PM, David Wright wrote:
> > On Mon 24 Mar 2025 at 06:34:05 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > Since the beginning of February I've been receiving what I consider
> > > spurious emails.
> >
> > > The only change to my setup {to best of my memory} was subscribing to
> > > the "debian-...@lists.debian.org" mailing list.
> >
> > On Fri 28 Mar 2025 at 08:00:59 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > Further investigation suggests a human *explicitly* sent all
> > > "desirable" emails to debian-...@lists.debian.org .
> > > I.E. When SeaMonkey displays header content onscreen, To: *OR* Cc:
> > > contains "debian-...@lists.debian.org".
> > > No "spurious" email has that in *EITHER* of those fields.
> > > [I don't know enough about email mechanics to understand how the
> > > "spurious" emails do get sent by some automatic mechanism.]
> >
> > So would it be true to say that the only connection between these
> > "spurious" emails, aka spam,
>
> *TILT*!!!
> I don't believe them to be spam.
> On 3/24 in response to having been asked:
> > What do you mean exactly by "spurious"?
> I had replied:
> > That I did not associate them to be related to my needs/desires/expectations
> > [ When posting I was unsure if "spurious" was best term - thus the
> > quotation marks in my post.].
> Please note my comment in the square brackets.
>
> > [SNIP]
You can't find the words to describe these emails, yet you won't
communicate any of their contents, header or body, as evidence
to the list. And yet you want the list members to tell you where
and how to report something that we know almost nothing about.
That makes no sense.
I asked you to check the headers of the emails, which you said
you can read in SM, and told you what you look for, and yet you
just snip that away. What's going on?
Cheers,
David.
Journalctl and offline boot disk drive
Hi, 'Back in the good old days' when logging was to text files. When a disk drive failed to boot, I could attach that disk drive to another computer as a secondary drive, and then mount and read the logs to see why it could no longer boot. As well as to inspect other things. (apologies that ' offline boot disk drive' might not be the best way to describe a normally bootable disk drive that is now attached as a secondary disk drive to a different computer. Maybe "secondary bootable drive", or "Non-Primary Boot Drive") Now with Journalctl, is it still possible to connect the failed-to-boot disk drive to another computer and read logs? How? Maybe the answer is to use -D or --directory to point to the attached disk drives journal directory? https://man.archlinux.org/man/journalctl.1.en *-D ***/DIR/, *--directory=***/DIR/ Takes a directory path as argument. If specified, journalctl will operate on the specified journal directory /DIR/ instead of the default runtime and system journal paths. Added in version 187. Example: journalctl --directory=/path/to/your/journal/ For example, journalctl --directory=/mnt/my_logs/journal Is my interpretation of the man instructions correct? Has anyone had the occasion to do this? And if so, does it work well? George. PS I am currently using Thunderbird to try out email threading. Are the any other good email clients that support email threading and are packaged in Debian?
Unable to install GRUB in dummy
i install with debian-12.10.0-amd64-netinst.iso during final stage of installation, it fails to install grub "Executing 'grub-install dummy' failed." "This is a fatal error." how to solve it? i bet it is caused by other bootloader in installation target disk
Re: Journalctl and offline boot disk drive
George Kirkham wrote: [snip disk drive question] > PS I am currently using Thunderbird to try out email threading. Are the > any other good email clients that support email threading and are > packaged in Debian? I use mutt, command line MUA, excellent. -- Chris Green ·
Re: Spurious emails from somewhere in "Debian hierarchy"
On 3/28/25 11:29 PM, David Wright wrote:
On Mon 24 Mar 2025 at 06:34:05 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
Since the beginning of February I've been receiving what I consider
spurious emails.
The only change to my setup {to best of my memory} was subscribing to
the "debian-...@lists.debian.org" mailing list.
On Fri 28 Mar 2025 at 08:00:59 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
Further investigation suggests a human *explicitly* sent all
"desirable" emails to debian-...@lists.debian.org .
I.E. When SeaMonkey displays header content onscreen, To: *OR* Cc:
contains "debian-...@lists.debian.org".
No "spurious" email has that in *EITHER* of those fields.
[I don't know enough about email mechanics to understand how the
"spurious" emails do get sent by some automatic mechanism.]
So would it be true to say that the only connection between these
"spurious" emails, aka spam,
*TILT*!!!
I don't believe them to be spam.
On 3/24 in response to having been asked:
What do you mean exactly by "spurious"?
I had replied:
That I did not associate them to be related to my needs/desires/expectations
[ When posting I was unsure if "spurious" was best term - thus the
quotation marks in my post.].
Please note my comment in the square brackets.
[SNIP]
Email threading (was Re: Frequent freezing around login screens)
Hi, On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 08:51:48PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > The complete algorithm is here: > > https://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html > > and is implemented in every good email client: there are no good > email clients which don't use it. It's a prerequisite to being > considered "good". But the majority of subscribers to this list do not use a good email client and arguments like this have not motivated them to start doing so. I agree with everything you say, and agree that probably if George were able to switch to better email software then using email would be more pleasant for them, but there is an undercurrent of "you are failing at email" here when the reality is more like "you are not excelling at email, unlike this tiny priesthood whose numbers dwindle every year". Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
On Sat 29 Mar 2025 at 15:53:01 (+0100), Hans wrote: > > just a question: Is it possible, to connect two computers with linux via wlan > without any router? > > I know, it is working with ethernet cable and crossover-cable. > > But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and > give computer A the IP-address from computer B as gateway, and the other way > round. Of course I my thinking was wrong (otherwise it would have been > worked). You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are designed to then connect that AP to the rest of the network, so that the AP is useful to wifi-only devices, but you can just ignore that. Example at: http://souktha.github.io/misc/create-ap-linuxpc/ Cheers, David.
Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
On 29/3/25 22:53, Hans wrote: But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and give computer A the IP-address from computer B as gateway, and the other way round. Of course I my thinking was wrong (otherwise it would have been worked). The WiFi router usually assigns dynamic addresses in a configured range. That does not stop you assigning additional static addresses, I think in any range, but to be safe in the router DHCP range. With fixed static addresses you can do the point to point and gateway stuff without issue.
Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
On 29/3/25 23:01, jeremy ardley wrote: On 29/3/25 22:53, Hans wrote: But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and give computer A the IP-address from computer B as gateway, and the other way round. Of course I my thinking was wrong (otherwise it would have been worked). The WiFi router usually assigns dynamic addresses in a configured range. That does not stop you assigning additional static addresses, I think in any range, but to be safe in the router DHCP range. With fixed static addresses you can do the point to point and gateway stuff without issue. To clarify the access point will typically assign a subset of a class-C range for DHCP. It will usually be O.K. to assign static addresses in the same class C but out of the DHCP range An alternative depending on the router is to configure the router to have fixed DHCP addresses based on MAC addres.
Re: Spurious emails from somewhere in "Debian hierarchy"
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 05:36:46 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > *TILT*!!! > I don't believe them to be spam. Show us an example of what you are talking about. Go to the list archives and find one of these messages, then paste its URL here.
OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
Dear list, just a question: Is it possible, to connect two computers with linux via wlan without any router? I know, it is working with ethernet cable and crossover-cable. But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and give computer A the IP-address from computer B as gateway, and the other way round. Of course I my thinking was wrong (otherwise it would have been worked). I saw several descriptions for Windows, but I am looking for a general solution, as I would like to connect also other devices (like an Android cellphone). You may ask, why I want to do this. Explanantion: I want to transfer video from a drone to the computer with wlan, but the router causes a slight delay between source and target (which is normal). So I aim to eliminate the brake. The protocol and software I am using on the computer is RTMP with NGINX and VLC, which is well working - except the little delay. Short for long: Is there an EASY way, to connect both hosts? Is it possible at all with linux? Thanks for any hints! Best Hans
Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
On 29/3/25 23:41, Hans wrote: It is not important, if a router is givng the devices an IP-address. So I do not need any dhcp. The IP-addresses can of course be set manually by me. The more problem I see, will be the encryption and passkey-exchange, if needed. However, I do not need encryption, thus even WEP would be welcome. Once your device has established a wireless client status it is irrelevant what IP you use. The link is encrypted using the WiFi protocol which is effectively a Layer 2 connection. The IP stuff is all at layer 3 so any traffic at the IP level will automatically be protected by the layer 2 WiFi encryption.
Re: Pls help fixing /boot/efi and GRUB
Greg Wooledge wrote: ... > Maybe. If you haven't created an /etc/default/su file, then something > like this: > > $ su > # adduser richard > > may fail. You could work around it in various ways (e.g. explicitly > typing out /usr/sbin/adduser richard). > > My recommendation is to create a one-line configuration file: > > hobbit:~$ cat /etc/default/su > ALWAYS_SET_PATH yes > > That's all it takes. With this file, with this setting, "su" with no > arguments will behave the way it's supposed to: it changes PATH without > changing your working directory. i've just been typing "su -" all along here and haven't run into any problems that i've noticed. perhaps i just don't ever rely upon PATH being something without explicitly setting it in my profile or bashrc or script. i don't use sudo, i just start a root shell in a particular terminal when i start up each day and then i only do root stuff there. songbird
Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
To clarify the access point will typically assign a subset of a class-C > range for DHCP. It will usually be O.K. to assign static addresses in > the same class C but out of the DHCP range > > An alternative depending on the router is to configure the router to > have fixed DHCP addresses based on MAC addres. It is not important, if a router is givng the devices an IP-address. So I do not need any dhcp. The IP-addresses can of course be set manually by me. The more problem I see, will be the encryption and passkey-exchange, if needed. However, I do not need encryption, thus even WEP would be welcome. Hans
nut on Debian bullseye: issues with UID and default config
Hello, I run a nut-server & nut-client on Debian bullseye connected to an UPS. It works very well: there are syslog messages for when the current is down and it's on battery, I can see the various statistics with upsc. However, it does not seem it really shuts down when low on battery. I noticed that upsmon & upssched run under user nut, not root, so upsmon.conf's SHUTDOWNCMD "/sbin/shutdown -h +0" does not work. As a work-around I installed sudo and added this to /etc/sudoers: nut ALL=(root) NOPASSWD: /root/scripts/all-machines-shutdown.sh and configured "sudo /root/scripts/all-machines-shutdown.sh" as the above SHUTDOWNCMD definition. This script is a bit complex because it needs to stop various machines in the correct order, but so far it looks ok. However, I noticed that sometimes the time to do the complete shutdown is quite long and when the batteries start to get a bit older, it could mean there is not enough time till the battery is completely depleted. So I modified upsmon.conf so to use upssched to start the shutdown after a three minutes of "on battery" has passed (in my region, either the cut is 10 seconds or less, or it's a few hours anyway). This gives, in upsmon.conf: NOTIFYCMD /sbin/upssched NOTIFYFLAG ONLINE SYSLOG+EXEC NOTIFYFLAG ONBATT SYSLOG+EXEC NOTIFYFLAG LOWBATT SYSLOG+EXEC and in upssched.conf: CMDSCRIPT /usr/local/bin/upssched-cmd-special AT ONBATT * START-TIMER onbattwarn 180 AT ONLINE * CANCEL-TIMER onbattwarn AT ONBATT * EXECUTE onbatt AT ONLINE * EXECUTE onpower AT REPLBATT * EXECUTE replace_batt and in /usr/local/bin/upssched-cmd-special, something like: case $1 in onbattwarn) logger -t $0 "should shutdown $(id)" sudo /root/scripts/all-machines-shutdown.sh ;; onbatt|onpower|replace_batt) logger -t $0 "$1 $(id)" ;; *) logger -t $0 "Unrecognized command: $1" ;; esac I also noticed that without the sudo it does not work either. However, there is more: if I do not change, in upssched.conf two definitions to: PIPEFN /run/nut/upssched.pipe LOCKFN /run/nut/upssched.lock it fails because it looks the startup scripts do not create the /run/nut/upssched/ directory which seems referenced by the default configuration. I just checked, and the stock nut-server and nut-client packages from bullseye still have those default configurations. I do not have a system managing an UPS running bookworm yet. So, either this post will be a documentation helping others, or an expert could tell me what I did wrong in the above :)
Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
> You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > designed to then connect that AP to the rest of the network, so > that the AP is useful to wifi-only devices, but you can just > ignore that. > > Example at: > > http://souktha.github.io/misc/create-ap-linuxpc/ > > Cheers, > David. Hi David, yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will be then again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, a software router is sklower than a hardware device). Cheers Hans
Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
On Sat 29 Mar 2025 at 16:37:39 (+0100), Hans wrote: > > You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > > designed to then connect that AP to the rest of the network, so > > that the AP is useful to wifi-only devices, but you can just > > ignore that. > > > > Example at: > > > > http://souktha.github.io/misc/create-ap-linuxpc/ > > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will be then > again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, a software router is > sklower than a hardware device). What new hop? You said you had the setup: hostA≡E--cat5/6--cable--∃≡hostB where E and ∃ are ethernet sockets. (You don't normally need a crossover cable nowadays.) Assuming that hostA can configure its wifi as an access point, then you replace the cable with: hostAP≡∈ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ∋≡hostB where ∈ and ∋ are antennae, and hostB connects to the AP as it would to a router's AP. My point with respect to your OP was that the wifi link is not symmetrical: hostB doesn't need to be an AP. If you can do it via ad-hoc networking, that's fine by me. The benefit of the method above is that you only have to reconfigure one host, A, and leave B untouched: B knows how to connect to an AP, so you can focus all your attention on getting hostA to work, and test it with any normal wifi device that happens to be on hand. Cheers, David.
Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router
>> You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will > be then again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, > a software router is sklower than a hardware device). No, if one of the PCs is the AP, then communication between the two PCs is direct without "extra hop". Similarly, if you use a separate AP/router box, any service you run on the AP/router box (e.g. a WAN connection) itself is available "directly" without any extra hop. Stefan
Has anyone noticed Bluetooth stop functioning on recent kernels?
I have a Beelink EQR6 running bookworm, and which has a Bluetooth chipset. Yesterday I tried to turn on Bluetooth (as I don't normally leave it enabled) and it wouldn't turn on. The only thing that appears in the log is this: gnome-control-c[985685]: BluetoothHardwareAirplaneMode: 0 I tried switching it on from Gnome control center several times, but to no avail. I was booted into linux-image-6.1.0-32-amd64 when I noticed this. I tried rebooting into linux-image-6.1.0-31-amd64 and the behavior was the same. Then I booted into linux-image-6.1.0-30-amd64 and Bluetooth worked again. There was not anything I was able to find in the BTS, so I'm curious if others have encountered this particular issue. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
