Yes, "crickets" is a meaningful outcome. The follow-on testing would be

a) try running /usr/sbin/expressvpnd as root (I failed to highlight that before). 

Then b) look into the end of the file /var/log/syslog for traces of that run; esp. if there is anything near a good statement of why it is failing. In particular, if it's an apparmor issue, then it would show up there I think.

Also b2), check whether there might be a dedicated log file for expressvpn in /var/log.

The init script you installed is fine, but there is obviously a problem for the expressvpnd daemon program.

Try running /usr/sbin/expressvpnd from the command line; it may tell you why it fails to start.

Perhaps you are using apparmor restrictively and it needs some permissions set up?

When setting up a bluetooth speaker it got set up as a USB device, and I had to manually chwon /dev/bus/usb/001/002  to me in order gain access to it; maybe you have the same issue?

Yeah, I've read many threads here and still haven't worked out any regular formula for when "advice to search" is administered.

There obviosuly should be a constent rule for it as otherwise any poster might feel left out or fingered; especially those that do search first and don't get any credit for that, as well as those who don't search first and thus suffer an amount of face loss.

I don't use this feature myself, but I have a private stash of useful information. Esp, some "random documentation" that says (far down):

That is, the entry would then look like the following

&%%(diary-float t 4 2) time for my shower

Perhaps that works?

Perhaps this was due to the service pkginfo.devuan.org not being available on ipv6, which now it is.

That device, 054c:094b, does not appear to yet be listed among known devices, but it might work by identifying it explicitly for jmtpfs, i.e. if your mount point is /media/camera you'd use:

jmptfs -d 001,003 /media/camera

Perhaps jmtpfs works for you.

@bbatten: iptables on beowulf (or buster, really) doesn't require arptables or ebtables, but it recommends nftables.

Upon installation, it gets set up to use the iptables-nft alternative implementation and then it provides syntax transparency via /usr/sbin/xtables-nft-multi so as to use the "traditional" iptables rules language for manipulating and reviewing the rules.

It also gives you the option to change it to use the iptables-legacy implementation through update-alternatives.

Doesn't that work for you?

💁 ... someone just made this forum full utf8... enjoy
https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html

Yes;

afaiui there is a hotplug event generated when the "kvm subsystem" (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) has been initialized. That event is (like all) handled by the hotplug handler (aka udev/eudev) via that "rule", which directs the handler to create the device node "/dev/kvm" with the particular permissions and group.

The same actions by hand would be these:

# mknod /dev/kvm c 10 232
# chmod 0666 /dev/kvm
# chgrp kvm /dev/kvm

Commenting out the rule will result in the absence of the device node, but not the sub system itself of course. This should be fine until there's some software needing it; eg qemu or virtualbox or whatever. Under an ideal modularization principle, the device node would rather be created as needed by that software, but few things are ideal.

I should apologise for suggesting that anyone here would be "an idiot". It's an unnecessarily offensive labelling which I don't think should be applied to any contributor. I did use it, but merely as a "literary short cut" to emphasize my view about certain ways of acting on this forum; namely that of deleting and/or destroying ones previous posts. However, it was not meant to be a value judgement against anyone's contribution(s), in the past or in the the future.

Now, due to my praiseworthy effort, that way of acting is no longer possible. Well rather, it is now a restricted ability available only to those who sports the role of Administrator, as well as of course, to those who have access to the server.

I see that @Vernon, and probably others, think of this differently from me. Since we (including me) want this to be a forum that in principle is owned by its contributors, I will want to pursue this discussion a bit to understand what the difference is. Especially if I am supposed to dive into the code again to make a variation or retraction of my improvements.

My start point was that I see all threads and posts as valuable, and therefore it should not be available for posters to change or delete their posts once they've made them, except for a grace period for the purpose spelling and grammar corrections. Perhaps it should even be stronger than now; that deletion should only be available until there is a subsequent post.

Maybe this is influenced by mailing lists which have that nature.

I don't think the idea of saving threads elsewhere ("if someone in the community feels a thread is valuable") is a workable approach, because I think this site is supposed to be that archive of Devuan-related discussions. That is indeed the reason why changing posts to me is outside of agreeable activity.

What else is this forum if not an archive of Devuan-related discussions?