Problem 1. I cannot get a USB stick to auto-mount when plugged in. I
have followed lots of advice, some of it most confusing, and also my
desktop, which also runs Ubuntu 22.04, auto-mounts USB devices just
fine.
Problem 2. In Thunderbird, I cannot get my old (18.04) Local Folders to
show. Advice varies from that which depends on non-existent options, to
an apparently clear process which promises to work, but doesn't. I have
a folder which contains the Local Folders.
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
Problem 1. I cannot get a USB stick to auto-mount when plugged in. I
have followed lots of advice, some of it most confusing, and also my desktop, which also runs Ubuntu 22.04, auto-mounts USB devices just
fine.
No idea on that one. It'll be a GNOME desktop thing I assume.
Problem 2. In Thunderbird, I cannot get my old (18.04) Local
Folders to show. Advice varies from that which depends on
non-existent options, to an apparently clear process which promises
to work, but doesn't. I have a folder which contains the Local
Folders.
In 24.04 they've switched Thunderbird to a snap, which puts its
config in a different place ~/snap/thunderbird/common/ not your home directory. Not sure if that also applies to 22.04, but if you have
the ~/snap/thunderbird folder you could try copying your
~/.thunderbird to be ~/snap/thunderbird/common/.thunderbird
(keep ~/.thunderbird as a backup)
Theo
As my Ubuntu 18.04 had run out of support, I decided to upgrade.
First, I could not do a straight upgrade, as the direct process was
by now unavailable . No problem, a Clean installation is the best way
anyway. I chose 22.04, as I had looked at 24.04 and couod not find
some familiar applications, so 22.04 would be a fairly seamless
process. In general, it was, but it's the final details and tweaks
that confound and take time, and lead to more time spent
head-scratching than time taken to do the base installation.
I have come up against some problems that I cannot fix, and I am
hoping that I can get some help here.
Problem 1. I cannot get a USB stick to auto-mount when plugged in. I
have followed lots of advice, some of it most confusing, and also my
desktop, which also runs Ubuntu 22.04, auto-mounts USB devices just
fine.
Problem 2. In Thunderbird, I cannot get my old (18.04) Local Folders
to show. Advice varies from that which depends on non-existent
options, to an apparently clear process which promises to work, but
doesn't. I have a folder which contains the Local Folders.
I had a Clawsmail problem, and a couple of LibreOffice problems, but I managed to sort them out. These two remaining ones have me stumped,
even though the answers are probably simple.
Any help gratefully received and welcomed. Thanks in advance.
Thunderbird is ver. 115.18.0 (64-bit).
On 14 Feb 2025 17:57:49 +0000 (GMT)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
Problem 1. I cannot get a USB stick to auto-mount when plugged
in. I have followed lots of advice, some of it most confusing,
and also my desktop, which also runs Ubuntu 22.04, auto-mounts
USB devices just fine.
No idea on that one. It'll be a GNOME desktop thing I assume.
Problem 2. In Thunderbird, I cannot get my old (18.04) Local
Folders to show. Advice varies from that which depends on
non-existent options, to an apparently clear process which
promises to work, but doesn't. I have a folder which contains the
Local Folders.
In 24.04 they've switched Thunderbird to a snap, which puts its
config in a different place ~/snap/thunderbird/common/ not your home directory. Not sure if that also applies to 22.04, but if you have
the ~/snap/thunderbird folder you could try copying your
~/.thunderbird to be ~/snap/thunderbird/common/.thunderbird
(keep ~/.thunderbird as a backup)
Theo
Hmm. I have seen references in my readings to snap, without really
delving into it. But I see a .snap folder, but it only has snap-store, snap-desktop-integration, and firefox. .thunderbird is nowhere to be
seen.
I am coming round to a choice: ...
On 16/02/2025 19:10, Davey wrote:
I am coming round to a choice: ...
Or you could ditch Ubuntu and install Debian (on which Ubuntu is
based) or Mint (which is based on Ubuntu), neither of which supports
snap by default, and install Firefox and Thunderbird in the usual way.
Snap is supposed to solve a number of problems that can result from incompatible versions of various dependencies being required by
different applications, but it comes with problems of its own ...
and, to be honest, in nearly 15 years of using Linux as my primary
desktop IOS I have only once run into a problem of the kind that snap
solves.
For Canonical (who make Ubuntu) snap is also the mechanism behind the
snap store, which is effectively their own proprietary app store.
That's actually not a very linuxish thing.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:35:36 +0000
Daniel James<daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
... you could ditch Ubuntu and install Debian (on which Ubuntu is
based) or Mint (which is based on Ubuntu), neither of which supports
snap by default, and install Firefox and Thunderbird in the usual way. [snip]
Hmm. Having just said that I do not want to learn a new system, what
you are saying seems to address the problems that I am encountering.
On 17/02/2025 08:46, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:35:36 +0000[snip]
Daniel James<daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
... you could ditch Ubuntu and install Debian (on which Ubuntu is
based) or Mint (which is based on Ubuntu), neither of which
supports snap by default, and install Firefox and Thunderbird in
the usual way.
Hmm. Having just said that I do not want to learn a new system, what
you are saying seems to address the problems that I am
encountering.
How different it will be depends rather on which desktop environment
you are using with Ubuntu. If it's the default Unity-like
configuration of Gnome 3 there is nothing quite like it in Debian or
Mint, but switching from (say) KUbuntu to Debian with KDE will not be
very different at all.
I use Debian with Mate, which looks and feels pretty similar to the
way Ubuntu did when I used to use it (about a decade ago) with the
default Gnome 2.
On 17/02/2025 08:46, Davey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:35:36 +0000[snip]
Daniel James<daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
... you could ditch Ubuntu and install Debian (on which Ubuntu is
based) or Mint (which is based on Ubuntu), neither of which
supports snap by default, and install Firefox and Thunderbird in
the usual way.
Hmm. Having just said that I do not want to learn a new system, what
you are saying seems to address the problems that I am
encountering.
How different it will be depends rather on which desktop environment
you are using with Ubuntu. If it's the default Unity-like
configuration of Gnome 3 there is nothing quite like it in Debian or
Mint, but switching from (say) KUbuntu to Debian with KDE will not be
very different at all.
I use Debian with Mate, which looks and feels pretty similar to the
way Ubuntu did when I used to use it (about a decade ago) with the
default Gnome 2.
Yesterday, I ran Linux Mint on the desktop, which took ages to laod,
and at a first glance, it did not seem able to locate, and therefore
install, vlc. It did give me functioning Facebook and Thunderbird,
though. I did not try Clawsmail.
I assume that there is a different process to find and install other programmes such as VLC, but I will not load Linux Mint again for a
while.
I now need to find how to move the Launchbar to the bottom of the
screen (GNOME?).
On 20/02/2025 09:59, Davey wrote:
Yesterday, I ran Linux Mint on the desktop, which took ages to laod,
and at a first glance, it did not seem able to locate, and therefore install, vlc. It did give me functioning Facebook and Thunderbird,
though. I did not try Clawsmail.
I assume that there is a different process to find and install other programmes such as VLC, but I will not load Linux Mint again for a
while.
Running any distro from a USB stick is slow, if that's what you were
doing.
VLC should be no trouble ...
Mint is derived from Ubuntu is derived from Debian.
I use Debian and have in the past used Ubuntu. I have only played
briefly with Mint some years ago so I can't claim intimate knowledge
of it ... but it's a Debian-based distro, so uses apt as the package
manager and can run synaptic if you want a GUI.
I now need to find how to move the Launchbar to the bottom of the
screen (GNOME?).
It depends which desktop environment you have downloaded and
installed -- is it Xfce, Mate, or Cinnamon ... or something else?
In Mate that's just a few clicks (right click on the bar, select "Properties", change "Orientation" from "Top" to "Bottom", click
"Close") but I can't speak for other DEs (nor understand why you'd
want to do that, but each to his own).
On 20/02/2025 09:59, Davey wrote:
Yesterday, I ran Linux Mint on the desktop, which took ages to laod,
and at a first glance, it did not seem able to locate, and therefore install, vlc. It did give me functioning Facebook and Thunderbird,
though. I did not try Clawsmail.
I assume that there is a different process to find and install other programmes such as VLC, but I will not load Linux Mint again for a
while.
Running any distro from a USB stick is slow, if that's what you were
doing.
VLC should be no trouble ...
Mint is derived from Ubuntu is derived from Debian.
I use Debian and have in the past used Ubuntu. I have only played
briefly with Mint some years ago so I can't claim intimate knowledge
of it ... but it's a Debian-based distro, so uses apt as the package
manager and can run synaptic if you want a GUI.
I now need to find how to move the Launchbar to the bottom of the
screen (GNOME?).
It depends which desktop environment you have downloaded and
installed -- is it Xfce, Mate, or Cinnamon ... or something else?
In Mate that's just a few clicks (right click on the bar, select "Properties", change "Orientation" from "Top" to "Bottom", click
"Close") but I can't speak for other DEs (nor understand why you'd
want to do that, but each to his own).
On 20/02/2025 09:59, Davey wrote:
Yesterday, I ran Linux Mint on the desktop, which took ages to laod,
and at a first glance, it did not seem able to locate, and therefore install, vlc. It did give me functioning Facebook and Thunderbird,
though. I did not try Clawsmail.
I assume that there is a different process to find and install other programmes such as VLC, but I will not load Linux Mint again for a
while.
Running any distro from a USB stick is slow, if that's what you were
doing.
VLC should be no trouble ...
Mint is derived from Ubuntu is derived from Debian.
I use Debian and have in the past used Ubuntu. I have only played
briefly with Mint some years ago so I can't claim intimate knowledge
of it ... but it's a Debian-based distro, so uses apt as the package
manager and can run synaptic if you want a GUI.
I now need to find how to move the Launchbar to the bottom of the
screen (GNOME?).
It depends which desktop environment you have downloaded and
installed -- is it Xfce, Mate, or Cinnamon ... or something else?
In Mate that's just a few clicks (right click on the bar, select "Properties", change "Orientation" from "Top" to "Bottom", click
"Close") but I can't speak for other DEs (nor understand why you'd
want to do that, but each to his own).
My latest problem concerns ssh and rsync.
I found that ssh would not work, and that I need to write:
ssh -v -oHostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-rsa david@192.168.1.164
to get to that PC.
But I can't get rsync to work, and I assume that it needs a similar modification to the command. The fault message is exactly the same as
it was for ssh:
Unable to negotiate with 192.168.1.164 port 22: no matching host key
type found. Their offer: ssh-rsa,ssh-dss rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes received so far) [sender] rsync error: unexplained
error (code 255) at io.c(232) [sender=3.2.7]
But I cannot find how to do that in rsync.
Again, any help most welcome.
Davey <davey@example.invalid> writes:
My latest problem concerns ssh and rsync.
I found that ssh would not work, and that I need to write:
ssh -v -oHostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-rsa david@192.168.1.164
to get to that PC.
But I can't get rsync to work, and I assume that it needs a similar modification to the command. The fault message is exactly the same
as it was for ssh:
Unable to negotiate with 192.168.1.164 port 22: no matching host key
type found. Their offer: ssh-rsa,ssh-dss rsync: connection
unexpectedly closed (0 bytes received so far) [sender] rsync error: unexplained error (code 255) at io.c(232) [sender=3.2.7]
But I cannot find how to do that in rsync.
Again, any help most welcome.
ssh-rsa and ssh-dss are disabled by default because they are too
weak. Personally I would fix the server once rather than fixing every
client.
How you do that depends on the OpenSSH version running on the server.
* Anything older than OpenSSH 5.7 will need upgrading.
* For anything from 5.7 onwards you should be able to create an ECDSA
host key.
* Alternatively upgrading to OpenSSH 7.2 or later since that would
normally offer rsa-sha2-256 using your existing RSA host key.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 21:11:05 +0000
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Davey <davey@example.invalid> writes:
My latest problem concerns ssh and rsync.
I found that ssh would not work, and that I need to write:
ssh -v -oHostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-rsa david@192.168.1.164
to get to that PC.
But I can't get rsync to work, and I assume that it needs a
similar modification to the command. The fault message is exactly
the same as it was for ssh:
Unable to negotiate with 192.168.1.164 port 22: no matching host
key type found. Their offer: ssh-rsa,ssh-dss rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes received so far) [sender] rsync
error: unexplained error (code 255) at io.c(232) [sender=3.2.7]
But I cannot find how to do that in rsync.
Again, any help most welcome.
ssh-rsa and ssh-dss are disabled by default because they are too
weak. Personally I would fix the server once rather than fixing
every client.
How you do that depends on the OpenSSH version running on the
server.
* Anything older than OpenSSH 5.7 will need upgrading.
* For anything from 5.7 onwards you should be able to create an
ECDSA host key.
* Alternatively upgrading to OpenSSH 7.2 or later since that would
normally offer rsa-sha2-256 using your existing RSA host key.
Hmm. Ok, I would have had no idea of any of that. Thanks. A job for
tomorrow or Monday.
I backup my files daily using rsync to a PC with Ubuntu 8.04 (!) and
also one with 22.04. Should I do the same process to both of them?
Will the 8.04 PC even have any idea what I'm trying to do?
Much obliged.
I am looking at following the instructions in:
https://synaptica.info/en/2024/07/05/9487/
I found that ssh would not work, and that I need to write:[snip]
ssh -v -oHostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-rsadavid@192.168.1.164
to get to that PC.
Unable to negotiate with 192.168.1.164 port 22: no matching host key
type found. Their offer: ssh-rsa,ssh-dss rsync: connection unexpectedly
Hmm. Ok, I would have had no idea of any of that. Thanks. A job for
tomorrow or Monday.
I backup my files daily using rsync to a PC with Ubuntu 8.04 (!) and
also one with 22.04. Should I do the same process to both of them? Will
the 8.04 PC even have any idea what I'm trying to do?
Much obliged.
I am looking at following the instructions in:
https://synaptica.info/en/2024/07/05/9487/
On 22/02/2025 17:36, Davey wrote:
I found that ssh would not work, and that I need to write:[snip]
ssh -v -oHostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-rsadavid@192.168.1.164
to get to that PC.
Unable to negotiate with 192.168.1.164 port 22: no matching host key
type found. Their offer: ssh-rsa,ssh-dss rsync: connection
unexpectedly
What that means is that you are having to specify explicitly an old,
less secure, cipher in order to connect to 192.168.1.164 because that machine doesn't (or isn't configured to) support the newer, more
secure, ciphers that your ssh client wants to use.
As Richard Kettlewell has said, that suggests strongly that you need
to update your server to a version that uses more secure ciphers,
rather than trying to force the client to use obsolete ones.
What OS is 192.168.1.164 running? It sounds as though it must be
pretty old.
Davey <davey@example.invalid> writes:
Hmm. Ok, I would have had no idea of any of that. Thanks. A job for tomorrow or Monday.
I backup my files daily using rsync to a PC with Ubuntu 8.04 (!) and
also one with 22.04. Should I do the same process to both of them?
Will the 8.04 PC even have any idea what I'm trying to do?
Much obliged.
That will probably have OpenSSH 4.6 or 4.7. Your best option at this
point is to upgrade the server to an Ubuntu release that is still in
support.
I am looking at following the instructions in:
https://synaptica.info/en/2024/07/05/9487/
Those instructions assume a much more recent operating system than
Ubuntu 8.04, they will not work unmodified for you.
Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
What that means is that you are having to specify explicitly an old,
less secure, cipher in order to connect to 192.168.1.164 because that
machine doesn't (or isn't configured to) support the newer, more
secure, ciphers that your ssh client wants to use.
Is this a confirmation that I should (try to) update to OpenSSH on all connected machines?
Davey <davey@example.invalid> writes:
Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote: =20=20
=20What that means is that you are having to specify explicitly an
old, less secure, cipher in order to connect to 192.168.1.164
because that machine doesn't (or isn't configured to) support the
newer, more secure, ciphers that your ssh client wants to use. =20
(In this case, the issue is a signature algorithm rather than a
cipher; and more specifically the hash function used by that
algorithm.)
=20
Is this a confirmation that I should (try to) update to OpenSSH on=20
all connected machines? =20
I=E2=80=99ve no idea about your other machines. Good general advice for anything connected to a network would be to use operating systems
that still get updates, and keep them fully updated. IMO for most
people the right way to keep things fully update is to enable
automatic updates.
=20
(In this case, the issue is a signature algorithm rather than a cipher;
and more specifically the hash function used by that algorithm.)
While I would agree with that in principle, as I said, the reason I did
not upgrade to a new version was that I could not get ZM and my
hardware to work with them. And it was not a problem until I installed
Ubuntu 22.04 instead of 18.04 on my laptop.
On 23/02/2025 17:34, Davey wrote:
While I would agree with that in principle, as I said, the reason I
did not upgrade to a new version was that I could not get ZM and my hardware to work with them. And it was not a problem until I
installed Ubuntu 22.04 instead of 18.04 on my laptop.
Ubuntu 22.04 is nearly three years old ... one might have hoped that
you'd have upgraded before now (though I would agree that there are
good reasons not to be *too* early an adopter).
What was the problem with ZM? Was it particular hardware? I have no practical experience with ZM (yet) but have been looking at setting something up to monitor a few IP cameras and it's been on my radar.
I'm interested to know what you think of it?
8.04 was Hardy Heron. That was the first Ubuntu version I used, and
was probably the distro that persuaded me to ditch Windows for good.
Are you running 32-bit or 64-bit?
On 23/02/2025 17:06, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
(In this case, the issue is a signature algorithm rather than a cipher;
and more specifically the hash function used by that algorithm.)
Yes, it's all about chosen-prefix attacks becoming possible on
SHA-1. We learn with hindsight that ssh-rsa might better have been
called ssh-rsa-sha1. At least ssh-rsa-sha2-256 isn't called
ssh-rsa-sha256, which would have led to a similar confusion if and
when sha3 replaces sha2.
It isn’t called either of those, it’s rsa-sha2-256.
AFAICT almost nobody else feels any need to refer to “SHA2-256” rather than just SHA-256 or SHA256, despite SHA-3 having been around for nearly
a decade.
I suspect the RFC8332 names are chosen for loose consistency
with the RFC5656 ECC algorithm names.
SHAKE is where it’s at if you want something from that family anyway l-)
I briefly looked at 24.04, and I could not find some applications that I
am used to. Don't ask me to list them, I have forgotten what they were.
My ZM installation on the 8.04 was done with a card bought from the
now-dead Satcure, but used a fairly standard (bt878?) chip.
It had a PCI connector, as this was the choice on the motherboard of
the PC. There was a small line of code to add to a configuration
file, and it all worked. Again, I cannot remember what the problems
were trying to get it to work with later distributions, but it
didn't, so there was no problem staying with ver. 8.04. It still
runs now. I don't intend to remove it, as it works.
Looking at my 8.04 download file, it appears to be 32-bit, there is no mention of amd64 in the title. Were 64-bit versions and PCs common back
then? The PC was bought in 2000.
Subject: Re: Help needed after upgrade Reply Take two.snip
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 16:52:09 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux
Organisation: Daniel James
On 23/02/2025 22:04, Davey wrote:
I briefly looked at 24.04, and I could not find some applications
that I am used to. Don't ask me to list them, I have forgotten what
they were. My ZM installation on the 8.04 was done with a card
bought from the now-dead Satcure, but used a fairly standard
(bt878?) chip.
OK ... most of the contemporary stuff I read about ZM is talking
about IP cameras, but you clearly have cameras that have their own
interface cards. A very different kettle of marine life.
It had a PCI connector, as this was the choice on the motherboard of
the PC. There was a small line of code to add to a configuration
file, and it all worked. Again, I cannot remember what the problems
were trying to get it to work with later distributions, but it
didn't, so there was no problem staying with ver. 8.04. It still
runs now. I don't intend to remove it, as it works.
"It works" is a great justification for using old software ...
especially when there is an investment in old hardware that may not
be supported by newer software.
Looking at my 8.04 download file, it appears to be 32-bit, there is
no mention of amd64 in the title. Were 64-bit versions and PCs
common back then? The PC was bought in 2000.
2000 is around the time that AMD started supporting 64-bit mode in
Athlon and Operton CPUs, while Intel were still banging the Itanium
drum. PC's were mostly 32-bit only, back then.
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
AFAICT almost nobody else feels any need to refer to “SHA2-256” rather >> than just SHA-256 or SHA256, despite SHA-3 having been around for nearly
a decade.
I think it's more than "almost nobody", but it is surprisingly
few. It's almost as though people were looking for a chance to create ambiguity.
I suspect the RFC8332 names are chosen for loose consistency
with the RFC5656 ECC algorithm names.
Could be ... though names like ssh-rsa are even earlier - from RFC4253
if not before.
It might have been better to use the (X.509, etc.) ASN.1 OID names.
SHAKE is where it’s at if you want something from that family anyway l-)
I thought the point of SHAKE was more to do with the choice of digest
length than the overall strength of the digest? I probably need to
reread what I thought I knew ...
| Sysop: | Luis Silva |
|---|---|
| Location: | Lisbon |
| Users: | 763 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 39:52:10 |
| Calls: | 247 |
| Files: | 46,971 |
| Messages: | 12,419 |