You are not logged in.
The Proton Mail / VPN people suggest you install OpenResolv when you configure a Linux system to use their VPN. Of course, they recommend that you to use their app first. But that requires the Gnome desktop environment, which is now in the death-grip of you-know-what eldritch abomination from the depths of Red Hat. So, if you configure manually, they say you should install both OpenVPN and OpenResolv -- specifically to prevent problems of the sort you are describing.
Now I am seeing warnings in some other Chrome installs. I have multiple disks with different distros and even, *shudder*, Windows 10 on them. Plugging them into my machines and updating them this weekend, I am finally seeing something happen in Chrome. There is a list of 'extensions that may not be supported soon' showing up. In the list is uBlock Origin, of course. But also NoScript, and Decentraleyes (!) ... This makes no sense. Decentraleyes uses a static list. All it does it replace 'free' resources that are also used to track browsing with local replacements. The agenda is pretty clear when something like that is included in the purge.
It's odd that the one VM just deleted uBlock but the other systems are giving advance warning. I wonder if there is some sort of 'gradual' process being implemented with random selection of certain installs to get the purge at different times. They are probably trying to prevent the backlash that a sudden mass shutdown would provoke.
Since this is going forward, it looks like I will have to be very, very selective in the future. Literally running Chrome only for sites where it is required and staying away from it for anything and everything else.
Not to mention that all the usual implementations of Secure Boot manage to achieve is to make things needlessly harder for users of alternative OSes like Devuan to install the OS of their choice.
You say that as if it's an accidental side-effect.
Version 126.0.6478.182 (Official Build) (64-bit)
That is currently running on a Devuan 4 VM that I use. Searching Google itself for the latest version, I get:
126.0.6478.182/183 / 16 July 2024
Looks like Google doesn't care about what Chromium supports. But again, the weird thing is that the ad-blocking extension is still in place, though it was deleted in a Devuan 5 VM.
More weirdness. uBlock Origin still works in another VM running Chimaera even though it was nuked in a newer VM running Daedalus. No, the updates have not stopped for Chimaera. I have the same version of Chrome on both systems... ???
In other news, Google has backtracked on killing third-party cookies in Chrome. Hmmm.... could it possibly be anti-trust fears?
Does this ηMatrix browser follow Chrome's customizations of HTML closely? If not, it's less useful than Firefox. At least Firefox has a lot of legacy support. Chrome is now dominant, and with some sites you just have to use Chrome to get access to the content.
But I spoke too soon. My copy of Chrome in a Linux VM deleted its installed uBlock Origin when I started actually visiting sites. Had to go get uBlock Lite with the new restricted powers.
So yes, Google has done something or other. With no announcement. It just deletes the ad-blocker with no warning or notice.
Google Chrome has updated today for the first time in several weeks. They had adopted a weekly patch schedule, claiming it was needed to keep up with bugs being exploited, so I wondered why the delay. Maybe they were preparing large changes for the end of the old extensions? But today it has updated again on both Windows and Linux and I don't see any warnings or error messages about the ad-blocking or other privacy protecting extensions like Noscript. Has there been any sort of announcement of a delay in their plan? It was supposed to be implemented in July, last I heard.
But those sorts of extensions are about to be severely cut back. Chrome will not allow effective ad-blocking in the very near future when the new "more secure" extension standards are enforced. I haven't seen the 'warnings' yet, but I think they are coming soon.
hddtemp:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: (none)
Version table:
0.3-beta15-54 -1
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
Why would they remove it? Was it causing some sort of problem? That's really annoying since Gkrellm needs it to read HD temp. Is there a replacement? How difficult would it be to get Gkrellm to use the standard Smartmon interface?
After upgrading a system from Devuan 4 to 5, everything important seems to work, but there is one strange quirk. The hddtemp package is present in the repositories. I can find it with search. But it's not installable. When I try it says "no candidate version found". What does that mean? Anything in the repositories is supposed to be working, not a 'candidate'.
Yeah, as others have already pointed out, he said nothing new here. Everyone has known this for ages, And yet Wind'ohs continues to dominate the desktop. Partly it's sheer inertia. When people develop habits they can be very hard to change.
As far as the government is concerned, it's actually about (irony of ironies) security. Not from the network, as this is the whole problem, but from the users. Government likes Wind'ohs for the same reason that big business does, the control over the peon desktops that you can have with Group Policy. There really is nothing else like it. No competition at all. If you want to have thousands of workers on computer workstations that you control remotely, restricting users from doing various things and keeping them under surveillance, there are no other options. And that's why big business and government use Wind'ohs and will continue to use it for the foreseeable future.
The ordinary consumer, on the other hand, without the resources to pay the huge license fees that government and corporations can shoulder, will be getting more and more advertising on their 'personal' computers in their own homes. A Wind'ohs computer is now a kiosk that MS controls and just happens to allow you to use. And MS has given themselves the right to watch everything you do and sift through all of your data to figure out what ads to shove in your face.
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/06/2 … r-backlash
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/04/1 … even-worse
This is quite powerful for a laptop. You could install whatever you like best, as all versions of Linux are lighter and smaller than Wind'ohs...
Odds are very good this is not Firefox, it's the sites. I've had several banking sites that used to work in Firefox stop working. But I've not forgotten the current problem with the web, called Chrome. Back in the day, MS was actually investigated for twisting HTML to suit themselves and lock out other browsers. Now, Chrome is being used to do the same and no one bats an eyelid. When I switch to Chrome the sites I was having problems with work fine.
We might try filing customer service complaints with the websites that only work with Chrome. But I suspect it's too late. Firefox is now 1 percent or less of usage and they won't care. Where are the antitrust investigators now?
The freaky thing about it was how unpredictable it was. Sometimes I would enter the password, get a flash of the desktop, and be flicked right back to the timeout screen. Over and over. Other times I got a minute or more before it was triggered. After scrambling around in settings, I found that there is a separate place for the screensaver now. (Or maybe 'in this desktop' since I installed Cinnamon, not the default XFCE) and I just turned off the screen lock. So far it's now working as I expected.
It's been WEEKS and I still have to boot to the old kernel every time I used that system. This is how they support "old stable"? I am suddenly much less inclined to start using Linux as my primary OS.
I installed Daedalus in a VirtualBox environment, and everything seemed to go fine. But when I got to the desktop and wanted to run apt-get and update the system to be current, I found that it keeps going back to the login screen. No, I did not get the password wrong. I login and get to the desktop, then in a very few seconds when I am in the middle of doing something it suddenly drops out, showing the time screen that I guess is the default screen saver, and I have to move the mouse to get the login to appear again. The password works again, and I get to the desktop... for a few seconds before getting kicked out again in the middle of what ever I am trying to do.
What went wrong?
"Dropping down"? Will we have to install backports repositories to get it? Why didn't they realize this update would cause a problem and arrange for both upgrades to be synchronized?
Something is not working with nVidia drivers and the latest kernel. Anyone else seen this?
Building module:
cleaning build area...
env NV_VERBOSE=1 make -j4 modules KERNEL_UNAME=5.10.0-29-amd64................(bad exit status: 2)
Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 5.10.0-29-amd64 (x86_64)
Consult /var/lib/dkms/nvidia-current/470.223.02/build/make.log for more information.
Demise of third-party cookies delayed again. But it's not clear from this story if the restricted extension rules will still be implemented on schedule.
https://digiday.com/marketing/google-de … yet-again/
Can anyone say if they are still killing ad-blockers on the scheduled date?
Now that the hoopla about the attempted supply chain attack via LZMA/XZ has settled down somewhat, I'd like to ask about something else that has been concerning me for a while.
What about all these 'portable' application formats? AppImage/Flatpak/Snap are the ones I am currently aware of. There might be more? Aren't these self-contained systems all to themselves, that might contain anything? Is anyone auditing their contents?
They're called 'sandboxes', but that's only in relation to the dependencies. They don't seem to be isolated from the user environment. They seem to have full user access to the systems they are installed in. Granted, that's not the same thing as root, but wouldn't Trojan horses in Linux user land be just as dangerous as Trojan horses in Windows user land have been?
It looks to me like this is another way around many of the checks on malicious content, and I wonder if anyone is paying attention.
The data sheets I have found show the enterprise drives as only marginally louder than the consumer drives of the same size. The larger any of them get, the louder. I guess that's a predictable consequence of more platters spinning at high speed.
It looks to me that the only issue I need to think about now is whether those 'cheap' enterprise drives on Amazon are very old OEM stock, manufactured further back than their warranty technically extends. Though I've seen the warranty on the consumer drives updated when you enter the purchase date on the registration site. Maybe WD is very confident of the shelf-life of their drives? If I get a five year warranty, how much does it matter when the drive was manufactured, I wonder?
When I had the 1TB RE4 drives, I did notice there was a bit more clatter when the drive was doing something. Not catastrophic, just noticeable while the 'consumer drives' were hard to hear even when seeking and reading/writing. This was not disturbing. What would be a problem is a constant whine when they are in operation. I wouldn't expect that from any sort of modern HD, though, since noise is wasted energy. A drive that can be heard spinning is not likely to last long.
Well, that tip alone makes it worthwhile to have asked for info here. According to this site:
https://nascompares.com/answer/list-of- … rives-hdd/
The drives I am looking at are CMR, not SMR. But many of those 'cheap' models, like the Red or Blue, do indeed use SMR.
My experience with WD drives in general has been good, but I always buy the high end, not the budget drives like Red or Blue. I had a set of four 1 TB RE4 drives, and still have 3 of them. One died very suddenly, but it was more than a decade old. Well past the warranty. When I moved up to 2 TB I bought the WD Black. Now I'm noticing the price difference again and I think the RE drives will be fine. Sure would like to know what the "Gold" designation means in the WD product line though. Never heard of it before finding that product.
It's about time to upgrade my storage, and I'm looking at HD prices. The consumer grade drives, like WD Caviar, have increased along with everything else in the current wave of inflation. A 4TB Caviar Black is running close to $150 now, up from about $120 a couple years ago. But the Enterprise are still pretty cheap and I'm wondering why. Does anyone have experience with the "RE" (Raid Enabled) or the "Gold" drives? What does the "Gold" rating mean?
https://www.amazon.com/Inch-Cache-Enter … 0090UEQ8I/
https://www.amazon.com/Gold-Enterprise- … 697A/?th=1
The prices for these are fluctuating, I suppose because of different sources from one day to the next. But they are consistently much cheaper than the "consumer" drives. Could this because of sheer age? Are they likely to be old stocks made a very long time ago? Or is it normal for enterprise drives to be significantly cheaper than the regular desktop drives? Are there important reasons not to use an enterprise drive in a desktop? My understanding was that RE drives have a shorter 'fail' timeout of sector errors because they are expected to be in an array ('raid' of course). Is there any other possible disadvantage of these for normal users? Any thoughts or experience are appreciated.
Probably a system service that didn't get the memo when you removed it. Is there a way to examine the 'script' in a .deb file and see all the actions taken? That might provide a clue to a setting somewhere that was not completely removed.