Looking for reccomendations
The headphone jack failed on my Dell M4800 laptop. I need to find reliable with decent stereo audio output External USB Sound Card/Audio Adapter with 3.5mm Stereo Headphone (3 pole plug) and Mono Microphone (nice to have) Jacks. It should be available in North America. Any recommendations? Thanks
Re: Looking for recommendations [SOLVED (for now]
Looks that I kind of solved it for now by cleaning the jack with the toothpick soaked in alcohol. Silly solution. I'm not sure for how long but the jack works now. Thanks for all replied folks. On 2021-12-28 8:31 p.m., Juan R.D. Silva wrote: The headphone jack failed on my Dell M4800 laptop. I need to find reliable with decent stereo audio output External USB Sound Card/Audio Adapter with 3.5mm Stereo Headphone (3 pole plug) and Mono Microphone (nice to have) Jacks. It should be available in North America. Any recommendations? Thanks
Re: Looking for recommendations [SOLVED (for now]
On 2021-12-29 8:46 p.m., David Christensen wrote: On 12/29/21 11:53 AM, Juan R.D. Silva wrote: On 2021-12-28 8:31 p.m., Juan R.D. Silva wrote: The headphone jack failed on my Dell M4800 laptop. I need to find reliable with decent stereo audio output External USB Sound Card/Audio Adapter with 3.5mm Stereo Headphone (3 pole plug) and Mono Microphone (nice to have) Jacks. It should be available in North America. Any recommendations? Thanks > Looks that I kind of solved it for now by cleaning the jack with the > toothpick soaked in alcohol. Silly solution. I'm not sure for how long > but the jack works now. > > Thanks for all replied folks. It is easy to forget the old-school electronics technician skills -- good for you. :-) (If you need to do this again, Amazon carries "micro applicators" with 2.0 mm diameter heads.) David Do you think you can provide a link for an example? Thanks
OT: anybody uses eero 6 WiFi router?
Hi folks, Shopping for a new ISP came across company that uses exclusively eero 6 router. Anyone to share your experience/opinion about the thing? 2 concerns of mine are: - cloud based private network management - Amazon owned Thanks
Re: OT: anybody uses eero 6 WiFi router?
On 2022-01-13 2:20 a.m., Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: On 13.01.2022 07:56, Juan R.D. Silva wrote: Hi folks, Shopping for a new ISP came across company that uses exclusively eero 6 router. Anyone to share your experience/opinion about the thing? 2 concerns of mine are: - cloud based private network management - Amazon owned Thanks I've never used this thing, but if I had to choose I would choose against it. If ISP uses eero 6 router exclusively, doesn't mean it is good, it is probably because of a special deal with Amazon. Just by skimming few reviews I can see, it's a "black box" without any information about hardware inside, so it must be dirt cheap to produce. Other concerns, it comes with Amazon spyware (content proxy) pre-installed, which raises privacy concerns. It is impossible to control without a smartphone and special app, which leads to security concerns. A few owners has reported about connectivity issues, that means a firmware is not stable enough. There is no telling about for how long it will be supported by Amazon. The only positive thing I can think of about this overpriced toy is an Amazon eco-system integration and Alexa interaction support. That is if someone needs something like that in their home. If I was in the market for the router for myself, I'd always choose one from MikroTik¹. They all have no-nonsence hardware and software design, no smartphone\app requirement, no eco-system requirement (like 'Ubiquiti' devices), it is highly customizable, has every feature you can think of, it could be controlled via many ways, secured and monitored and will be supported by manufacturer for years via firmware updates. The only downside I can think of is somewhat advanced configuration could be difficult for somebody, but with help from official forum and wiki² quite manageable and as a bonus I'll learn a lot about networking, routing. ¹ https://mikrotik.com/products ² https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia says: "On 3 August 2018, MikroTik routers were found to have been compromised by the Coinhive cryptocurrency malware." "Beginning in June 2021, a botnet composed of unprotected Mikrotik devices created huge volumes of application-layer traffic using http pipelining, resulting in DDOS. The net was named Mēris (or Meris) by Qrator. Yandex reported attacks beginning August 4 2021 (over 5 million requests per second) with a massive attack on September 5, 2021 reaching almost 22 million RPS (requests per second). Cloudflare acknowledged an attack at over 17 million RPS in July 2021. The botnet appeared to be composed of 250,000 devices." Nice try Alexaner. :-) Thanks anyway.
GNOME brightness controls have no effect on brightness
Hi folks, Debian 11 on Dell M4800 Mobile Workstation with Nvidia Quadro K2100M card. I've been using the system with full (100%) screen brightness for rather long time. Today I wanted to reduce it and to my astonishment found that GNOME "progressed" to the point when even this basic feature has gone. The function keys work, the sliders move. Everything is dandy, except it has no effect on the actual brightness, which stack at 100%. Even setting the brightness in BIOS to 50% instead of 100% has no effect. Google revealed a lot of complaints but so far I've not found any really helpful suggestion. Worse, I even couldn't find any trace of this being a bug of some sort. Anyone can help here? I'm getting old and my eyes sore. :-( Sorry for the rant but it looks that either GNOME folks decided they know it best what it should be for everyone or they are so busy with frequent "nice" GUI changes and re-designs that there is no time left for actual functionality. Fake controls and sliders doing nothing?.. This is really climax. Thank you, Juan
Re: GNOME brightness controls have no effect on brightness
On 2022-04-04 5:17 a.m., davidson wrote: On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 Juan R.D. Silva wrote: Hi folks, Debian 11 on Dell M4800 Mobile Workstation with Nvidia Quadro K2100M card. I've been using the system with full (100%) screen brightness for rather long time. Today I wanted to reduce it and to my astonishment found that GNOME "progressed" to the point when even this basic feature has gone. The function keys work, the sliders move. Everything is dandy, except it has no effect on the actual brightness, which stack at 100%. Even setting the brightness in BIOS to 50% instead of 100% has no effect. Google revealed a lot of complaints but so far I've not found any really helpful suggestion. Worse, I even couldn't find any trace of this being a bug of some sort. Anyone can help here? I'm getting old and my eyes sore. :-( I'll show you what I do. I don't use GNOME, but maybe it will work. Four steps: 1. Confirm this directory has expected contents: $ ls -p /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/ actual_brightness bl_power brightness device max_brightness power/ subsystem type uevent It has "brightness" and "max_brightness" files. So far so good. 2. Find out what counts as maximum brightness. (I think I have seen this vary from laptop to laptop): $ cat /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/max_brightness 7 3. Find out what value current brightness is: $ cat /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness 5 4. As root, write some value less-than-or-equal-to maximum brightness (found in step 2) into "brightness" file. For example, when 5 is too bright, I might try replacing that with 4. # echo -n 4 > /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness That is all. Hope this helps. Sorry for the rant but it looks that either GNOME folks decided they know it best what it should be for everyone or they are so busy with frequent "nice" GUI changes and re-designs that there is no time left for actual functionality. Fake controls and sliders doing nothing?.. This is really climax. I have no patience for figuring out where graphical desktops hide (or document) their "user friendly" configuration tools, so I can sympathise. Something like the above procedure (maybe with some extra exploration of /sys/class) has always worked for me. Good luck. Hope this helps. Looks that I failed to deliver the point in my post. All 4 steps are correct. And I most certainly can happily change the value in the /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness file to whatever I want. The problem is it does not have any effect on the actual/physical screen brightness. The change of the value in the /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness only results in the slider in Brightness settings and other related GUI controls being carefully and precisely re-positioned to reflect the new value in /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness. This is why there was a rant. Looks that like in GNOME moving the sliders around is the only goal. Well, that's been achieved. Greetings to the devs. :-) Sorry for another one. :-) Thanks.
Re: GNOME brightness controls have no effect on brightness
On 2022-04-05 7:06 p.m., David Wright wrote: On Mon 04 Apr 2022 at 15:42:46 (-0400), Juan R.D. Silva wrote: On 2022-04-04 5:17 a.m., davidson wrote: On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 Juan R.D. Silva wrote: [ … ] Sorry for the rant but it looks that either GNOME folks decided they know it best what it should be for everyone or they are so busy with frequent "nice" GUI changes and re-designs that there is no time left for actual functionality. Fake controls and sliders doing nothing?.. This is really climax. I have no patience for figuring out where graphical desktops hide (or document) their "user friendly" configuration tools, so I can sympathise. Something like the above procedure (maybe with some extra exploration of /sys/class) has always worked for me. Good luck. Hope this helps. Looks that I failed to deliver the point in my post. All 4 steps are correct. And I most certainly can happily change the value in the /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness file to whatever I want. The problem is it does not have any effect on the actual/physical screen brightness. The change of the value in the /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness only results in the slider in Brightness settings and other related GUI controls being carefully and precisely re-positioned to reflect the new value in /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness. This is why there was a rant. Looks that like in GNOME moving the sliders around is the only goal. Well, that's been achieved. Greetings to the devs. :-) Sorry for another one. :-) Having had two good rants at Gnome, surely you now have to tell us whether moving the sliders changes the value in /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness, regardless of any effect on the screen itself. Yes, it does. Sorry, I thought it was clear from the context. Re-vied my wordings and see now it was not crystal clear. :-)
LibreOffice - any way to recover not saved changes to the file?
I edited a file for hours and then mistakenly clicked "Do not save" while closing file. Auto save is not enabled. No backup exist in LibreOffice Backup folder. The computer is not restarted yet. Temp folder have only old version. Any way to recover the lost edited version? Or the only option to suffer the lost and to start all over again? Appreciate any help. Thanks
Re: LibreOffice - any way to recover not saved changes to the file?
(short answer) No. Its more like "shit happens!" It does indeed :-( Even with best of knowledge and abilities, what once was in memory (RAM) will be reused pretty quick, and if you chose to not autosave regularly, there won't be much left, and even if there would be, the work to get it into proper shape might easily exceed the amount of work to recreate it. It was my wild guess as well :-). Posted the question any way out of disperation :-) It is in your memory - in one form or another... This was a good one :-) I'm an older fellow. :-) So for now: Take advantage of "short term memory" and things like that. For the future, you might invite different consequences. You could think again about the autosave feature. I was pissed off to find out that autosave is desabled by default. I used not to care. Looks like now I want to enable it. :-) And finally: You could fight the rising of bad habits (like involuntarily clicking on warning boxes, or such...) because - as we know - the PEBCAK. In my case it was the bad mouse with jumping cursor. Logitec certainly. Now I'm going to replace it. To me, your question does ressemble - in some way - to the guy, who would like to undo his divorce, while not wanting to change its behavior towards members of the other sex. Not much, you can do, but remorse. ;-) This one is even better that the first above. :-) Thanks for you time. Oh, I did recreated it. And I even think is very close to original. :-)
Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.
Hi folks, Debian Bullseye here up to date. Browsers installed: Firefox, Opera, Vivaldi, and Google Chrome. I'm having a weird problem streaming movies from archive.org. The movies are lagging & keep buffering in all browsers but Google Chrome. Google Chrome streams same movies at the same time without any stuttering. So far I've notices it using on archive.org only, so I'm not sure if the problem is on my side or on archive.org. The problem is rather recent but persistent and in last days get really bad. Any suggestions? Thanks.
11 to 12 - fresh install or upgrade
Hi folks, It's time to move from bullseye to bookworm. Based on the previous years experience I've always preferred a fresh install vs. an upgrade, since the freshly installed system always run smoother and was not littered with any old junk left from the old system. However, things might have changed/improved. Thus I decided to ask the community. Could you share your opinion based on personal experience? To install or to upgrade? Mine is fairly simple desktop system for home use. Nothing special, except maybe the need of dual architecture support and Wine to run one special little app. Thanks.
BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key
I downloaded debian-12.1.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso, SHA512SUMS, and SHA512SUMS.sign files from https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-dvd/. $ sha512sum -c SHA512SUMS gives me OK. So the image is fine. However verifying the signatures fails. $ gpg --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS gpg: Signature made Sat 10 Sep 2022 07:00:46 PM EDT gpg:using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B gpg: Can't check signature: No public key I downloaded the required key: $ wget -c "https://www.debian.org/CD/key-DA87E80D6294BE9B.txt"; and imported it: $ gpg --import key-DA87E80D6294BE9B.txt When repeated verification get this: gpg --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS gpg: Signature made Sat 22 Jul 2023 01:04:11 PM EDT gpg:using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B gpg: BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key " [unknown] Can anybody explain it. I do not see what I'm doing wrong here. Thanks.
Re: BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key [RESOLVED]
On 2023-08-06 9:28 p.m., Juan R.D. Silva wrote: I downloaded debian-12.1.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso, SHA512SUMS, and SHA512SUMS.sign files from https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-dvd/. $ sha512sum -c SHA512SUMS gives me OK. So the image is fine. However verifying the signatures fails. $ gpg --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS gpg: Signature made Sat 10 Sep 2022 07:00:46 PM EDT gpg: using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B gpg: Can't check signature: No public key I downloaded the required key: $ wget -c "https://www.debian.org/CD/key-DA87E80D6294BE9B.txt"; and imported it: $ gpg --import key-DA87E80D6294BE9B.txt When repeated verification get this: gpg --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS gpg: Signature made Sat 22 Jul 2023 01:04:11 PM EDT gpg: using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B gpg: BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key " [unknown] Can anybody explain it. I do not see what I'm doing wrong here. Thanks. The problem is resolved. My fault. :-).
Re: BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key [RESOLVED]
On 2023-08-06 9:28 p.m., Juan R.D. Silva wrote: I downloaded debian-12.1.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso, SHA512SUMS, and SHA512SUMS.sign files from https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-dvd/. $ sha512sum -c SHA512SUMS gives me OK. So the image is fine. However verifying the signatures fails. $ gpg --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS gpg: Signature made Sat 10 Sep 2022 07:00:46 PM EDT gpg: using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B gpg: Can't check signature: No public key I downloaded the required key: $ wget -c "https://www.debian.org/CD/key-DA87E80D6294BE9B.txt"; and imported it: $ gpg --import key-DA87E80D6294BE9B.txt When repeated verification get this: gpg --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS gpg: Signature made Sat 22 Jul 2023 01:04:11 PM EDT gpg: using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B gpg: BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key " [unknown] Can anybody explain it. I do not see what I'm doing wrong here. Thanks. The problem is resolved. My fault. :-).
Re: BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key [RESOLVED]
On 2023-08-08 10:52 a.m., Matthieu Roquejoffre wrote: On 2023-08-08 at 03:37 p.m., Juan R.D. Silva wrote:> The problem is resolved. My fault. :-). Could you please explain to us what the cause of your issue was and how you solved it ? This could be useful for anyone facing a similar issue. The whole thing was caused by a silly typo in CLI. So, I do not think the actual detailed report would be useful to anyone. I thought that stating:"My fault" was enough as an explanation. Thanks.
Bookworm boot stacks with black screen after NVIDIA driver installed.
Hi folks. Fresh Bookworm install on Dell M4800 Precision with i7-4810MQ CPU @ 2.80GHz and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M graphic card. No problems install, the system works with the default nouveau driver well enough. My video card is supported according to NVIDIA. Debian nvidia-detect advised installation of nvidia-tesla-470-driver available in repo. After installing it the system boot stacks somewhere in the middle with a weird black screen. No access to TTYs, no cursor, no reaction to keyboard. I tried to boot with "nomodeset" in GRUB with no result. When rebooted in restore mode neither journal -b or journal -xe showed any problems. Nvidia module seems to be inserted and loaded. No other problems reported. The only way out is to execute 'apt purge "*nvidia*", and to reboot. The system then reverts to nouveau driver without any problems. Anyone, please? Thanks.
Anybody Skype users here?
Hi folks, I use Skype installed from Debian official repo. A couple of days ago it refused to update reporting "server timed out". After looking into it, I found that MS removed Skype.deb package from their server and basically forces everyone to use Snap package instead. Skype is the only app I would need Snap for on my system. Unfortunately, I still need Skype and I do not see any alternative but to concede to MS (and Ubuntu?) brute coercion. Any body installed Snap on their Debian system? Any problems with that thing? Any suggestions to use Skype otherwise? Thanks
Re: Anybody Skype users here?
Hey Timothy, have you really read my post? 1. I wrote it clearly "I still need Skype". (And yes, I have my reasons for it, even if it surprises you.) 2. And how have you arrived to "Ubuntu" subject? I'm Debian user. Again read to post you replied to. 3. I really don't care what you personally use and if you are happy with it or not. I need a Skype user suggestion about a particular situation. You do not use Skype and have no clue to be in help. Then just skip off. Boy, these thread hijacking boys are annoying. Thanks On 2024-05-30 7:06 p.m., Timothy M Butterworth wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 6:59 PM Juan R.D. Silva mailto:juan.r.d.si...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi folks, I use Skype installed from Debian official repo. A couple of days ago it refused to update reporting "server timed out". After looking into it, I found that MS removed Skype.deb package from their server and basically forces everyone to use Snap package instead. Skype is the only app I would need Snap for on my system. Unfortunately, I still need Skype and I do not see any alternative but to concede to MS (and Ubuntu?) brute coercion. To hell with Ubuntu, I use Google Voice, Chat and Meet. All three are free and work great just using the browser. Any body installed Snap on their Debian system? Any problems with that thing? Any suggestions to use Skype otherwise? Thanks -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org/ <https://www.debian.org/> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀
OT: laptop evaluation
Hello over there, I'm considering purchase of Xiaomi Redmibook 16 Pro (2024) laptop: Intel Core Ultra 7 up to 4.8GHz, 32GB RAM, Intel Arc integrated graphics, 1TB SSD storage, 99Wh battery and 16” Super Retina display with 3.1K resolution. The laptop has a very positive review on Notebookcheck. But now I'm do not know how Linux friendly (or unfriendly) it is. Does anybody has a personal experience with it? Any information, opinion, personal experience would be helpful. Thanks.
cannot download bookworm
Hi, I am trying to download debian-bookwarm-12.6.0.iso and it looks like all servers and mirrors are down. What's happening? Thanks
Re: cannot download bookworm
Hi, I'm not trying to do anything exotic. www.debian.org home page is accessible. I can browse up to this page https://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/#stable but no further. Trying then amd64 link for dvd browser (I tried several of them) reports "the page is not accessible" or something like this. I tried several different mirrors (randomly) with the "downloading error" from browser either immediately or after several second. My internet connection otherwise is just fine, no local admin is involved (it's me :->). Ups, right now a miracle happened. I kept trying while writing and get through. The first attempt to download was as described above but the second gave my my ISO. I don't think my ISP has to do anything with it. Well, I've got my ISO. Thanks On 2024-08-21 3:49 p.m., Andy Smith wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 03:46:40PM -0400, Juan R.D. Silva wrote: I am trying to download debian-bookwarm-12.6.0.iso and it looks like all servers and mirrors are down. What's happening? It works for me. Time for you to ask your Internet service provider or local network administrators? If you need more advice perhaps you could show us which link you're trying to download and what happens when you do. Thanks, Andy
Re: cannot download bookworm
Hi folks, I do not know the reason but for about 3 hours I could access debian.org website and browse it up to this page https://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/#stable but no further. When tried to open amd64 link to download dvd, I get "the site cannot be open" or something similar. At the same time I could access the mirrors list on debian.org. However, when I tried to download from several random mirrors my browser gave me "downloading error" either immediately or after several second after download started. My internet connection otherwise was just fine. I kept trying and then suddenly get through on debiag.org. The first attempt to download failed but the second finally gave me my ISO. I don't think my ISP has to do anything with it. Looks like there was some mysterious trouble on debian side. And BTW, when I browsed several random mirrors I did not find the actual ISO file there. The only exception was https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/debian-cd/12.6.0/ page suggested by Felix. So, I get it as well. :-) Thanks
