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?

At present we administer this forum as a "public discussion forum".

This means in particular that the posts are contributions to the thread(s) of discussion in as much is possible similar to verbal group discussion. In particular we cannot un-say what is said. Rather, if I mis-speak in a way I see as significant, I'll have to make further contributions to correct, revise or retract that mis-speaking. In short, the posts I make are not "mine to edit"; after I've make a contribution it thereafter remains as the contribution I made at the time.

As a matter of contrast, this site is (was) not intended to be a "personal blogs site" or "dokumentation site" (aka wiki), although a number of threads are laid up more like such than as public discussions. And at least in my mind, "editing history" is not a feature of a storage of public dicussions.

The timeout is a day, or 86400 seconds, since the creation of the post.

@Vernon, it shouldn't have stopped you from editing that post so I'm not sure what is happening there.

'edit' and 'delete' are treated the same based on my reasoning that editing lets you remove all content, and a blank post is basically the same as a deleted post.

@GNUser: please note that R2 is an off-the-shelf router (TL-WR841N) and it offers only an http(s) admin panel rather than shell access.

@Devuman: with forwarding set up, you should use only

ssh <PC1user>@192.168.18.8

That's the whole idea of forwarding. It makes R2 to channel tcp connections on its port 22 WAN side (ie 192.168.18.8:22) onto port 22 on PC1 (ie 192.168.1.101:22) without involving itself in the traffic.

The double-hop is used when you have ssh access to an intermediate host, to use that as a temporary forwarding channel.

If the ISP has port 22 closed outside of R1 then you probably need to contact them to open it. But that's only to get access to PC1 from the Internet.

The R1 virtual server set up you show on the screenshot makes it possible to access port 22 on PC1 from the Internet, provided that R2 is set up similarly, and that it has that IP address 192.168.18.8 mentioned on the screenshot as its WAN side IP address.

sftp access from LT2 to PC1 only requires the R2 set up (not the R1 set up), and PC1 would then be accessed using that same IP address.

Might you have forgotten to do

apt-get update

as well, so as to update your local package lists?