Posts by nobodyuknow

nobodyuknow · Installation

Thanks for the response. Yeah, that was a typo. I looked through Symantec, but did not see it. Now I tried again and it's there. I'm going blind.

nobodyuknow · Installation

I just created a new MATE system on a NUC. I installed ufw, but gfw was not available, whether via Symantec or apt. Is that a community creation?

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

I ran into an obscure and destructive bug involving avahi-daemon and GRUB. Keep in mind that I'm writing this from memory, as I had no idea what what was going on until after the incident, so I could have a fact wrong. I'm running Devuan 4.0 MATE via an external SSD (AMD processor).

I learned a long time ago that I needed to uninstall avahi-daemon to prevent my system seeing printers in one of the libraries I visit. I always thought it was strange that only this library had this problem.

I always have to edit /boot/grub/grub.cfg after a new kernel is installed to eliminate (comment-out) the Windows section, as I don't want a dual-boot. So I did some research and learned of /etc/default/grub. Linux wikis, especially Arch, noted that a line in that file, GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER=true, might allow me to avoid editing the file any more. So I edited that file and executed update-grub.

Wi-Fi crashed. At first I thought I had only screwed up Linux, but then I tried Windows 10. No Wi-Fi. I went and spoke with a librarian and she informed me that everything related to the Internet was down: Ethernet, Wi-Fi, and VOIP.

HOLY COW, I CRASHED THE LIBRARY!

No, I won't repeat it to confirm everything.

I went back and looked at Synaptic and realized that I had somehow forgotten to uninstall avahi-daemon.

Since this is the only library to allow me to see printers, I suspect that the admins have configured their system wrong somehow. Librarians think all patrons are children, so there's no point in trying to alert the admins, as the message would not be forwarded.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

@Head_on_a_Stick

Good news, bad news. The first message no longer appears, but now there are new related ones. There are many pages of the first one and about one page of the second one, though they appear all the time, not just when the power cord is removed and reattached. Oh well, restoring brightness to 100% is an easy fix.

/var/log/messages
Jan 27 12:21:48 toshiba128 kernel: [ 8594.996429] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: unhandled firmware c2h interrupt

/var/log/syslog
Jan 27 12:25:52 toshiba128 kernel: [ 8839.278618] ACPI: \_PR_.P007: Found 2 idle states

nobodyuknow · Installation

@rolfie

It's been a while since I did it, but I do seem to remember seeing two entries for the USB flash drive. I'll have to wait until I have an entire day free to make sure I have a working system when I'm finished.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

I installed that deb, but now when I unplug the power, the screen immediately dims and does not return to the initial brightness when I plug it back in. Oh well, it's only an annoyance.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

Every time I unplug my newish laptop and then plug it back it, the screen goes to 30% brightness. I must reset brightness to 100% via the Power Management application. Please note that the brightness does not go to 30% until it is plugged back in, the reverse of what I would expect.

My older laptop has never exhibited this behavior.

Maybe it's a coincidence, but some of the logs contain the message "Jan 10 11:14:47 name-of-the-system kernel: [ 1957.046406] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state."

I'm beginning to think that the Realtek wireless driver has an obscure bug that causes the brightness reduction.

The above is seen on three Devuan systems: Cinnamon, MATE, and Xfce, so it is not related to the choice of desktop. All run on external SSDs.

Both laptops are HP, but the older one has Broadcom wireless and Intel processor, while the newish one has Realtek wireless and AMD processor.

P.S. The brightness problem is only a minor inconvenience, but I'm trying to eliminate the page or two of error/warning messages seen during boot on the newish laptop.

nobodyuknow · Installation

@Head_on_a_Stick

I don't know if that's true for my laptop. When I tried it with the default (UEFI) BIOS settings, I could not boot Linux at all. I would have preferred to have the BIOS support UEFI, as then everything would be current, but I could not make it work. I might try it again, though I'm not thrilled about going through the BIOS settings again.

nobodyuknow · Installation

@Head_on_a_Stick

Thanks for the link. That's one of those things that's really difficult to find via a search.

@rolfie and Camtaf

My laptops are both HP, which still offers legacy boot as a BIOS option, though my newish laptop offers a Frankenstein legacy boot. And yes, GPT isn't really the problem, it's UEFI which prevents Linux booting via external drives. One advantage of changing to legacy boot is that Microsoft is not downloading Windows 11 for me, even though the hardware would otherwise support it.

nobodyuknow · Installation

I have a newish laptop with Windows 10 installed on the internal SSD. I have an old laptop with Windows 10 installed on the internal SSD, but I remove the SSD to install Linux on external SSDs/USB flash drives (to avoid dual-boot), which I then run on the newish laptop. Both laptops are configured with legacy boot. I do this crazy scheme because the newish laptop is a PITA with respect to removing the back.

Up until now, I've had no problem installing Linux using MBR. However, the latest Linux Mint and Fedora mandate that GPT be used. I gave up on both of them. Sparky Linux does it right, advising the use of GPT, but allowing MBR.

For 5.0, please don't mandate GPT.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

@chris2be8

Toshiba/Vantec gives the same piggish results as Samsung/Vantec. Actually it's worse than that, because I've realized that the Vantec has been causing errors which are getting worse. The last time I plugged the Vantec into my laptop, it caused the system to react as if I had unplugged the system drive, for example, showing unprintable (if that's the right word) icons in the start menu and elsewhere. I'm really disappointed with Vantec, as all of my 2.5" HDD/SSD external enclosures are Vantec and they work perfectly.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

UPDATE:

I simplfied the story somewhat before. I actually had two NVMe SSDs -- Toshiba and Samsung -- and two external enclosures -- Vantec and Plugable. Like any situation with multiple variables, sometimes it's difficult to know what to blame.

I reformatted both NVME SSDs to EXT4. First I tried Toshiba/Plugable, which worked as above. Then I wrote my last post. But then I tried Samsung/Vantec -- and it still was piggish. This time I tried Samsung/Plugable and the response was fast as with Toshiba/Plugable. So I actually had two problems: NTFS and defective Vantec. I'll recycle the Vantec.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

@andyprough

Wow! Reformatting to EXT4 made an amazing difference. Transfers are at least five times faster. And I'm running 5.18, though there's something amiss about the drivers it provides for my laptop (but that's another story). Thanks for the help.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

Thanks to all for the replies.

@Head_on_a_Stick

Ah, yes, the relevant driver would be for USB 3.0. I was chasing the wrong tail, or whatever that metaphor is.

@andyprogh

Actually I have a Plugable unit too which I bought first, though it exhibited the same piggish performance. I noticed in the Plugable reviews that some people were angry that the performance was only USB 2.0. There's got to be some combination of factors that results in piggish performance.

As soon as I make sufficient backups, I will try your suggestion and reformat the NVMe SSD to EXT4 and recopy the data from the aforementioned backups. I'm running NTFS now, but that's a legacy from Windows systems.

I ordered a cable from Startech, a vendor I've had nothing but good luck with. We'll see if it makes any difference.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

The system is Devuan Cinnamon Chimaera installed on an external SSD connected via USB 3.0. The laptop has an AMD processor and 16 GM of memory.

The additional hardware is an NVMe SSD (Samsung PM961 with about a hundred hours on it) inside a Vantec NST-205C3-SG external enclosure. The Vantec is advertised to support USB 3.1.

Two relevant lines from lspci are:

04:00.3 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Raven USB 3.1
04:00.4 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Raven USB 3.1

I copied music files to the external SSD, but the performance is no better than an external HDD. I've tried a few changes -- different external enclosure, different cable, different USB port -- but the performance never improves. And often when I double-click on a folder, it takes a few seconds or even longer to respond, exactly the same as with a HDD.

USB 3.0 should be saturated with the hardware. Of course, the USB 3.0 port could be having problems.

The only thing I can think of is that the Linux driver is some kind of generic one, in other words, slow. The driver for the SSD's cousin, Samsung 960 EVO, would be nice, but Samsung probably never released one for Linux. Does this sound right?

nobodyuknow · Installation

@GlennW

Bingo (the first one). The error messages are the same.

[    0.264961] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve symbol [\_SB.PCI0.GPP2.BCM5], AE_NOT_FOUND (20211217/dswload2-162)
[    0.265128] ACPI Error: AE_NOT_FOUND, During name lookup/catalog (20211217/psobject-220)
[    6.134372] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT, Field [D008] at bit offset/length 128/8 exceeds size of target Buffer (128 bits) (20211217/dsopcode-198)
[    6.134558] ACPI Error: Aborting method \HWMC due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.134709] ACPI Error: Aborting method \_SB.WMID.WMAA due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.134888] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT, Field [D008] at bit offset/length 128/8 exceeds size of target Buffer (128 bits) (20211217/dsopcode-198)
[    6.135068] ACPI Error: Aborting method \HWMC due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.135212] ACPI Error: Aborting method \_SB.WMID.WMAA due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.135559] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT, Field [D008] at bit offset/length 128/8 exceeds size of target Buffer (128 bits) (20211217/dsopcode-198)
[    6.135767] ACPI Error: Aborting method \HWMC due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.135932] ACPI Error: Aborting method \_SB.WMID.WMAA due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.136124] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT, Field [D008] at bit offset/length 128/8 exceeds size of target Buffer (128 bits) (20211217/dsopcode-198)
[    6.136322] ACPI Error: Aborting method \HWMC due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.136478] ACPI Error: Aborting method \_SB.WMID.WMAA due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.136665] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT, Field [D009] at bit offset/length 136/8 exceeds size of target Buffer (136 bits) (20211217/dsopcode-198)
[    6.136862] ACPI Error: Aborting method \HWMC due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.137018] ACPI Error: Aborting method \_SB.WMID.WMAA due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.137205] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT, Field [D009] at bit offset/length 136/8 exceeds size of target Buffer (136 bits) (20211217/dsopcode-198)
[    6.137402] ACPI Error: Aborting method \HWMC due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.137561] ACPI Error: Aborting method \_SB.WMID.WMAA due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.137765] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT, Field [D008] at bit offset/length 128/8 exceeds size of target Buffer (128 bits) (20211217/dsopcode-198)
[    6.137991] ACPI Error: Aborting method \HWMC due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[    6.138152] ACPI Error: Aborting method \_SB.WMID.WMAA due to previous error (AE_AML_BUFFER_LIMIT) (20211217/psparse-529)
[   20.461856] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: failed to get tx report from firmware
[ 1362.038359] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 1668.022511] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 1712.054375] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 1918.042159] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 2206.038375] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 2664.117912] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 2961.901327] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: failed to send h2c command
[ 3370.966356] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 3588.022456] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 3622.042265] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 4027.990374] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 4325.014380] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 4669.014370] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 4989.013917] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 5094.037917] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 5778.101932] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 6453.973919] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 6515.990138] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 7508.029887] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 7579.029869] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 7697.082108] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 7766.998392] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 7783.029873] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 7850.042228] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 7908.021877] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8193.014399] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8220.053905] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8222.037922] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8336.021916] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8507.033918] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8559.009881] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8770.038370] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8805.045958] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8825.014373] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8830.966241] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 8854.998381] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9020.021916] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9042.037909] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9180.053884] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9202.041905] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9273.993881] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9340.021950] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9385.017888] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9512.985911] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9524.985880] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9568.993880] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state
[ 9605.029869] rtw_8821ce 0000:03:00.0: firmware failed to leave lps state

Let me think about those messages. I have Devuan MATE installed on a different external SSD -- the one in question is Cinnamon, with both being Chimaera -- so I can compare the boots.

Another strangeness is that maybe last month I updated the BIOS to the most recent one (F.62). I tried reinstalling the previous one (F.61), but the error messages remained the same. I downloaded the last seven BIOS updates and I think I'll try each one, going back in time.

By the way, because of the Realtek wireless chipset, I installed linux-image-5.18.0-0.bpo.1-amd64_5.18.2-1~bpo11+1_amd64.deb. Otherwise there was no connectivity.

nobodyuknow · Installation

/var/log/boot was the first one I tried, but it does not contain the error messages that fly by. My eyes never were good, but I swear the messages have something to do with BIOS.

nobodyuknow · Installation

Something is going on during boot, but the messages fly by too fast to read. I looked at a few logs in /var/log, but my eyes are glazing over. What's the name of the log for error/warning messages seen during boot?

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

@Head_on_a_Stick

"an autoremove operation will delete them so be sure the new one works before running that"

I found that out the hard way once when I thought the newer kernel was running properly, so I autoremoved the old kernel -- and the system kinda died. <chuckle>

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

Thanks for the response. Now I won't worry about overwriting 5.18.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

This system is Devuan 4.0 Cinnamon. 5.18 kernel is installed (linux-image-5.18.0-0.bpo.1-amd64_5.18.2-1~bpo11+1_amd64.deb) because the hardware includes Realtek wireless RTL8821CE. Today the following was seen after executing "apt update, apt upgrade":

The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required:
  linux-image-5.10.0-9-amd64
Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove it.
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  linux-headers-5.10.0-17-amd64 linux-headers-5.10.0-17-common
  linux-image-5.10.0-17-amd64
The following packages will be upgraded:
  linux-compiler-gcc-10-x86 linux-headers-amd64 linux-image-amd64
  linux-kbuild-5.10 linux-libc-dev

Why is Devuan worrying about a kernel that's not being used? Does Devuan keep two kernels, one for the current state of the distribution and another if a custom one was installed?

nobodyuknow · Installation

Thanks to everyone who responded.

I decided to chance it and follow Camtaf's advice, as I already do that for Pale Moon. I know how to edit a desktop-file, so I now have Nightly running via an icon on the Cinnamon taskbar. In .mozilla/firefox, there is now an entry of somestuff.default-nightly, so my fears of Nightly clobbering ESR's configuration was unfounded. I found a suitable icon in firefox-nightly/browser/chrome/icons/default, so this is a happy ending.

nobodyuknow · Installation

Devuan offers Firefox ESR, but what about also installing either Firefox Beta or Nightly? Would they overwrite configuation files at /home/user/.mozilla? Does either offer an advantage over the other, given that it would be used simply as a second browser?

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

@golinux and GlennW

Thanks for the warning, as I was already looking at Debian packages.

I looked at the link, and the packages (https://pkginfo.devuan.org/), but my eyes glazed over at all of the rt, dbg, cloud, etc., images and headers. I'll have more tea and look again.

nobodyuknow · Hardware & System Configuration

@GlennW

Thanks for that. I've never used Debian backports. I guess I just add "deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye-backports main" to sources.list.

@Head_on_a_Stick

So the philosophy for Devuan (and Debian, I assume) is to release one kernel with the original release? That explains why the only available kernel is 5.10.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#1 Re: Installation » [SOLVED] Where is gfw? » 2024-02-06 00:31:23

#2 Installation » [SOLVED] Where is gfw? » 2024-02-05 17:54:16

#3 Hardware & System Configuration » obscure and destructive bug involving avahi-daemon and GRUB » 2023-05-19 20:45:00

#4 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] screwy power management » 2023-01-27 19:32:42

#5 Re: Installation » [SOLVED] DEVELOPERS: don't hardcode GPT on installation » 2023-01-13 19:28:57

#6 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] screwy power management » 2023-01-13 19:26:25

#7 Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] screwy power management » 2023-01-12 00:21:39

#8 Re: Installation » [SOLVED] DEVELOPERS: don't hardcode GPT on installation » 2023-01-09 22:48:17

#9 Re: Installation » [SOLVED] DEVELOPERS: don't hardcode GPT on installation » 2023-01-07 18:42:18

#10 Installation » [SOLVED] DEVELOPERS: don't hardcode GPT on installation » 2023-01-06 19:25:06

#11 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] external NVMe SSD is piggish » 2022-09-23 18:32:12

#12 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] external NVMe SSD is piggish » 2022-09-22 18:06:03

#13 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] external NVMe SSD is piggish » 2022-09-21 22:26:21

#14 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] external NVMe SSD is piggish » 2022-09-19 19:56:56

#15 Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] external NVMe SSD is piggish » 2022-09-18 20:37:51

#16 Re: Installation » name of log for error/warning messages seen during boot » 2022-09-07 20:46:17

#17 Re: Installation » name of log for error/warning messages seen during boot » 2022-09-06 19:55:03

#18 Installation » name of log for error/warning messages seen during boot » 2022-09-06 19:19:55

#19 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] 5.18 kernel installed, yet apt wants to install newest 5.10 » 2022-08-16 23:10:58

#20 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] 5.18 kernel installed, yet apt wants to install newest 5.10 » 2022-08-15 22:16:20

#21 Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] 5.18 kernel installed, yet apt wants to install newest 5.10 » 2022-08-15 20:05:22

#22 Re: Installation » [SOLVED] install either Firefox Beta or Nightly » 2022-08-09 21:21:39

#23 Installation » [SOLVED] install either Firefox Beta or Nightly » 2022-08-07 22:09:02

#24 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] When will 5.13 kernel be available? » 2022-07-21 18:30:39

#25 Re: Hardware & System Configuration » [SOLVED] When will 5.13 kernel be available? » 2022-07-19 23:56:50

Board footer