On 2025-03-16, wrote:
>
>> > Not yet, I'm in the UK and the boat is in France, I'll be back there
>> > in a couple weeks. :-)
>> That's the dream, man, to leisurely navigate those French canals in the
>> spring or summer. Good sailing to you.
> I used to cycle them, also a dream. And waved to t
On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 01:33:08PM -, Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-15, Chris Green wrote:
[...]
> > Not yet, I'm in the UK and the boat is in France, I'll be back there
> > in a couple weeks. :-)
>
> That's the dream, man, to leisurely navigate those French canals in the
> spring or summer. Goo
t day delivery) because it is reasonably high definition, it has a
>> > USB-A plug to go straight into my laptop and it has the second lens on
>> > the side which seemed to me a good idea when poking around under the
>> > engine on the boat.
>>
>> And did you fi
has a
> > USB-A plug to go straight into my laptop and it has the second lens on
> > the side which seemed to me a good idea when poking around under the
> > engine on the boat.
>
> And did you find Aunt Bertie in the bilges, or was she at the local pub?
>
Not yet, I
> visible for Windows. The awful part is that,
> I need to run a commercial software on
> the Windows system of that device, and that
> commercial software frequently performs
> full-disk scan 'for the sake of user security'.
If at all possible, you might be better off turning the Windows part
int
On Thu Mar 13 16:49:25 2025 "James H. H. Lampert"
wrote:
> On 3/13/25 12:15 PM, David Wright wrote:
>
>> OTOH most people will have come across endoscopes, usually in the
>> context of colonoscopies and suchlike, hence your "scary".
>
> Why would anybody find a colonoscopy scary?
>
> Just geek o
Chris Green wrote:
> I don't want to look at the outside of the hull, I want to look
> inside right down in the bilges under the engine. This is quite
> inaccessible and one of the cameras that are advertised mostly as
> 'endoscopes' would make looking around down there more possible.
>
> As I
into my laptop and it has the second lens on
> the side which seemed to me a good idea when poking around under the
> engine on the boat.
And did you find Aunt Bertie in the bilges, or was she at the local pub?
;-)
ne of these cameras with Debian? Actual
> > > > recommendations of specific suppliers/cameras would be very
> > > > welcome, eBay, Amazon, AliExpress, I'm not fussy! :-)
> > >
> > > In 2022 I ordered an endoscope from Newegg which failed to work wit
On Friday 14 March 2025 08:28:30 am debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> Chris Green wrote:
>
> > I don't want to look at the outside of the hull, I want to look
> > inside right down in the bilges under the engine. This is quite
> > inaccessible and one of the cameras that are advertised mostly
On 2025-03-13, Chris Green wrote:
>
> As I said before the only reason I used the word endoscope was that
> it's the best way to actually get hits on the type of device I'm
> after. Another search term that can work is 'inspection camera'.
The only other term I've managed to discover would be "b
On 2025-03-13, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> Greg wrote:
>> On 2025-03-13, David Wright wrote:
>> >
>> > OTOH most people will have come across endoscopes, usually in the
>> > context of colonoscopies and suchlike, hence your "scary".
>>
>> I've never come across one for the general pub
On 2025-03-13, Chris Green wrote:
> Greg wrote:
>> On 2025-03-13, David Wright wrote:
>> >
>> > OTOH most people will have come across endoscopes, usually in the
>> > context of colonoscopies and suchlike, hence your "scary".
>>
>> I've never come across one for the general public, but then it
On 3/13/25 12:15 PM, David Wright wrote:
OTOH most people will have come across endoscopes, usually in the
context of colonoscopies and suchlike, hence your "scary".
Why would anybody find a colonoscopy scary?
Just geek out and enjoy the guided tour!
--
JHHL
Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-13, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > OTOH most people will have come across endoscopes, usually in the
> > context of colonoscopies and suchlike, hence your "scary".
>
> I've never come across one for the general public, but then it would
> never have occurred to me to search
Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-13, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > OTOH most people will have come across endoscopes, usually in the
> > context of colonoscopies and suchlike, hence your "scary".
>
> I've never come across one for the general public, but then it would
> never have occurred to me to sear
On 2025-03-13, David Wright wrote:
>
> OTOH most people will have come across endoscopes, usually in the
> context of colonoscopies and suchlike, hence your "scary".
I've never come across one for the general public, but then it would
never have occurred to me to search for an endoscope to inspec
On Thu 13 Mar 2025 at 15:46:17 (-), Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-13, Joe wrote:
> >
> > It's only a webcam, and random webcams usually work.
Most of the webcams I see are too bulky, probably because of their
mountings and microphone spacing.
> The term "endoscope" seems excessive (if not scary).
ere's UVC support in Debian
> > > (guvcview et al.)
> > >
> > > Can anyone confirm that I have this right? Does anyone here
> > > actually use one of these cameras with Debian? Actual
> > > recommendations of specific suppliers/cameras wou
Greg wrote:
> On 2025-03-13, Joe wrote:
> >
> > It's only a webcam, and random webcams usually work. I've recently
>
> The term "endoscope" seems excessive (if not scary).
When searching for one to buy it's necessary as otherwise you get
load
On 2025-03-13, Joe wrote:
>
> It's only a webcam, and random webcams usually work. I've recently
The term "endoscope" seems excessive (if not scary).
ommendations of
specific suppliers/cameras would be very welcome, eBay, Amazon,
AliExpress, I'm not fussy! :-)
In 2022 I ordered an endoscope from Newegg which failed to work with
either Debian or Windows. I returned it without incident. It does not
seem to be available from Newegg at the moment. So
On 2025-03-12 14:26, Chris Green wrote:
I want to buy one of the cheap (£2.50 to £15) USB endoscope cameras so
I can poke around and see things under the engine of my little canal
boat.
A little bit of research suggests that most will probably work if they
claim to work with a 'PC' as that impli
commendations of
> specific suppliers/cameras would be very welcome, eBay, Amazon,
> AliExpress, I'm not fussy! :-)
In 2022 I ordered an endoscope from Newegg which failed to work with
either Debian or Windows. I returned it without incident. It does not
seem to be available from Newe
Chris Green wrote:
> I want to buy one of the cheap (£2.50 to £15) USB endoscope cameras so
> I can poke around and see things under the engine of my little canal
> boat.
>
> A little bit of research suggests that most will probably work if they
> claim to work with a 'PC' as that implies they us
I want to buy one of the cheap (£2.50 to £15) USB endoscope cameras so
I can poke around and see things under the engine of my little canal
boat.
A little bit of research suggests that most will probably work if they
claim to work with a 'PC' as that implies they use UVC to communicate
with a comp
Hi Stefan:
I agree. There is a Windows VM set up in the Debian environment of that device
to execute 'normal' Windows applications - just that that commercial software
requires too much resources for that device to run in VM, so it gets a real
system.
If that device would be upgraded to be pow
On 09/03/2025 15:47, Miriami wrote:
About the projects I've found - I searched with
three terms on GitHub - 'sqlite', 'fs' and
'fuse'.
Device mapper (dm) might give some alternatives to fuse.
Perhaps VeraCrypt or some other encrypted container might be used to
store filesystem. Of course, it i
x27;t
> store files for extra copies, right? I guess
> the sparse file mechanism would work fine.
Note that the sparse file behavior depends on the hosting filesystem,
which contains your large sparse file, not on the filesystem inside
that file.
The ext4 inside the file will do what it does wit
qcow format could be used to
provide a virtual disk which dynamically grows.
However, I didn't dig into researching about it.
Now I think again and changed my mind - I think
qcow might work as well - but I would firstly
try the ext4 image solution, which sounds
simpler.
About the projects I&#x
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
But if, instead, what you want is the backing store to grow then use a
sparse file as the backing store.
This idea reduces the search to filesystems which don't hop around and
write without need to new random places on their storage m
Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 08/03/2025 19:31, Miriami wrote:
> > Would you recommend me a mature fuse filesystem, which uses a single
> > file as backing storage, and could self-growing in size?
>
> Qemu's qcow2 disk images may grow in size while initially they may be
>
On 08/03/2025 19:31, Miriami wrote:
Would you recommend me a mature fuse filesystem, which uses a single
file as backing storage, and could self-growing in size?
Qemu's qcow2 disk images may grow in size while initially they may be
smaller than size exposed to virtual machines. However l
mount and then mount again, whenever a new session was
written.
> But if, instead, what you want is the backing store to grow then use a
> sparse file as the backing store.
This idea reduces the search to filesystems which don't hop around and
write without need to new random places on their
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Miriami wrote:
Hi!
Would you recommend me a mature fuse filesystem, which uses a single
file as backing storage, and could self-growing in size?
It's like using a fuse ext4 filesystem, just that with self-growing -
I tried the fuse ext4 filesystem, but it seems that
Miriami wrote:
>
> Would you recommend me a mature fuse filesystem, which uses a single file as
> backing storage, and could self-growing in size?
>
> It's like using a fuse ext4 filesystem, just that with self-growing - I tried
> the fuse ext4 filesystem, but
Hi!
Would you recommend me a mature fuse filesystem, which uses a single file as
backing storage, and could self-growing in size?
It's like using a fuse ext4 filesystem, just that with self-growing - I tried
the fuse ext4 filesystem, but it seems that fuse ext4 filesystem requires the
us
pture: <https://ibb.co/5XC3QMxh>.
>
> My question is, which web server is installed when selecting Web Server?
Apache2.
If you're going to mostly be using Spring, don't bother using
the Web Server pre-select. Install the packages you actually
want after the system install time.
-dsr-
> include Web Server. Spring typically uses Tomcat.
> >
> > Here is the screen capture: <https://ibb.co/5XC3QMxh>.
> >
> > My question is, which web server is installed when selecting Web Server?
>
> Apache2.
>
> If you're going to mostly be using Spr
Hi Everyone,
I need to test a Spring app on Debain 12. I'm installing Debian 12.9.
I'm at the Select Software portion of the installation. The selections
include Web Server. Spring typically uses Tomcat.
Here is the screen capture: <https://ibb.co/5XC3QMxh>.
My question is, whi
rinters to add:-
> > >
> > > HP LaserJet M15w (FD27B6) (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
> > > HP LaserJet M14-M17 (driverless) (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
> > > HP LaserJet M14-M17 (driverless) (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
> > > HP LaserJet M15w (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
>
)
> > HP LaserJet M14-M17 (driverless) (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
> > HP LaserJet M14-M17 (driverless) (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
> > HP LaserJet M15w (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
> >
> > So which one should I choose? Does it matter?
>
> See <https://wiki.debian.org/Pr
M14-M17)
> HP LaserJet M14-M17 (driverless) (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
> HP LaserJet M15w (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
>
> So which one should I choose? Does it matter?
See <https://wiki.debian.org/Printing>,
<https://wiki.debian.org/SystemPrinting> and
<https://wiki.debian.org/CUPSDriverlessPrinting>.
Jeff
LaserJet M14-M17 (driverless) (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
> HP LaserJet M15w (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
>
> So which one should I choose? Does it matter?
It might matter -- I would imagine that it's a case of
"zeroconf/bonjour/avahi" duplicating the "driver-needed" and
&q
t M15w (HP LaserJet M14-M17)
So which one should I choose? Does it matter?
--
Chris Green
·
On Thu 05 Dec 2024 at 21:01:12 (+0800), hlyg wrote:
> On 12/2/24 19:21, hlyg wrote:
> >
> > Thank Wright!
> >
> > i install inxi and run it:
> >
> > model: Logitech Wireless Keyboard
> > charge: 55% (should be ignored) status: discharging
> > model: Logitech Wireless Mouse
> > charge: 5% (shou
On 12/2/24 19:21, hlyg wrote:
Thank Wright!
i install inxi and run it:
model: Logitech Wireless Keyboard
charge: 55% (should be ignored) status: discharging
model: Logitech Wireless Mouse
charge: 5% (should be ignored) status: discharging
they r unimportant after all
how reliable is "c
Thank Wright!
i install inxi and run it:
model: Logitech Wireless Keyboard
charge: 55% (should be ignored) status: discharging
model: Logitech Wireless Mouse
charge: 5% (should be ignored) status: discharging
they r unimportant after all
On Mon 02 Dec 2024 at 16:02:27 (+0800), hlyg wrote:
> i try some gnome live cd, it warns that my battery of wireless
> keyboard is low
>
> my deb12 haven't gnome, which command can show that info?
Here, inxi -Bx shows:
Battery: Device-1: hidpp_battery_0 model: Logitech
device manager for Logitech's Unifying Receiver wireless
peripherals. It is able to pair/unpair devices to the receiver, and for
some devices to read battery status.
If you are using Gnome and a Logitech Wireless keyboard, then:
# apt install solaar-gnome3
George.
>
> my deb12 haven'
Thank George!
i use logitech keyboard/mouse combo, i install solaar for deb12, it can
show that info without gnome
actually it says mouse battery is 5%, less than keyboard battery
i try some gnome live cd, it warns that my battery of wireless keyboard
is low
my deb12 haven't gnome, which command can show that info?
On 10/04/2024 06:44 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 10/4/24 04:47, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 10/03/2024 06:34 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 10/3/24 05:51, Richard Owlett wrote:
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used
by only a one user?
In my case it should be und
On 10/4/24 04:47, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 10/03/2024 06:34 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 10/3/24 05:51, Richard Owlett wrote:
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used
by only a one user?
In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
But where?
It would help if y
On 10/03/2024 06:34 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 10/3/24 05:51, Richard Owlett wrote:
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by
only a one user?
In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
But where?
TIA
It would help if you told us about the executable a
On 10/3/24 05:51, Richard Owlett wrote:
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by
only a one user?
In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
But where?
TIA
It would help if you told us about the executable and the context for
its use -- e.g. self-contain b
Richard Owlett writes:
> Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by
> only a one user?
I use Debian and I throw every executable in ~/.local/bin, everything just
works without any additional setup.
anywhere /except/ in one of those two
directories, so that it /won't/ be included in your PATH.
Which is why I said thank you to Michael for the standards.
They are going to prevent problems unrelated to this thread.
Cheers,
David.
d location".
Unlike the other answers I've seen in the thread so far (which are
personal anecdata), my answer provides one such, with references.
Actual specifications are worth the bother >99% of the time.
My actual background is primarily component level analog and was doing
"
On 10/03/2024 08:31 AM, Michael Kjörling wrote:
On 3 Oct 2024 07:51 -0500, from rowl...@access.net (Richard Owlett):
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by only
a one user?
In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
But where?
The XDG Base Directory Specific
dard/recommended location".
Unlike the other answers I've seen in the thread so far (which are
personal anecdata), my answer provides one such, with references.
--
Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
On Thu 03 Oct 2024 at 08:31:08 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 10/03/2024 08:03 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> > On 03/10/2024 14:51, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be
> > > used by only a one user?
> > > In my case it should be under /home/r
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:31:14PM +, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2024 07:51 -0500, from rowl...@access.net (Richard Owlett):
> > Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by only
> > a one user?
> > In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
> > But where?
On 3 Oct 2024 07:51 -0500, from rowl...@access.net (Richard Owlett):
> Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by only
> a one user?
> In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
> But where?
The XDG Base Directory Specification recommends ~/.local/bin for
"user-spec
On 10/03/2024 08:03 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Hello Richard,
the /etc/skel/.profile add to PATH ~/bin and ~/.local/bin if they exist.
On 03/10/2024 14:51, Richard Owlett wrote:
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by
only a one user?
In my case it should be under
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 09:11:39AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by only
> > a one user?
> > In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
> > But where?
>
> I'd put it in ~/bin
That's where mine live, too.
Cheers
--
t
si
On 10/03/2024 08:11 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by only
a one user?
In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
But where?
I'd put it in ~/bin
Stefan
As /home/richard/bin does not exist, I assume the answer is t
Hello Richard,
the /etc/skel/.profile add to PATH ~/bin and ~/.local/bin if they exist.
On 03/10/2024 14:51, Richard Owlett wrote:
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by only a
one user?
In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
But where?
hth,
Jerome
> Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by only
> a one user?
> In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
> But where?
I'd put it in ~/bin
Stefan
Is there standard/recommended location for an executable to be used by
only a one user?
In my case it should be under /home/richard/ .
But where?
TIA
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 05:36:50AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > > Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > > > I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> > > > > current Debian release.
> > > > >
>
two years, if I am to
believe wikipedia.
> On 08/28/2024 09:07 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
> > It seems to me that you're doing your own thing in
> > your own way and expecting us to accomodate that, which seems at
> > least somewhat unreasonable. For background: the lsc
fact lscpu can help answer the question, but it's the
second line ("CPU op-mode(s)") that indicates whether the CPU supports
64-bit instructions even if running on a 32 bit kernel, not the
"Architecture" line. *But*, I'm not sure the op-mode line is fully
determinativ
d a
Kim. Still have a Kaypro 10 in a back room - haven't booted in decades.
On 08/28/2024 09:07 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:10:21AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 08/27/2024 08:14 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm looking for for where *Debian* d
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:10:21AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 08/27/2024 08:14 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
current Debian release.
I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
Proce
See also
Debian Reference
Chapter 2. Debian package management
2.2.1. apt vs. apt-get / apt-cache vs. aptitude
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_literal_vs_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal
Regards,
J
On Tue 27 Aug 2024 at 20:32:04 (+0100), Joe wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 21:03:02 +0200 Hans wrote:
> > First, we have the oldest, whcih is apt-get.
> > apt-get update, apt-get upgrade or apt-get full-upgrade does a good
> > job.
> > So, my question is: Which one is
t; loads its own list and is not using the list from apt-get (otherwise it could
> not explain, why aptitude and apt-get every time reloads the new list, when
> one of the other was eecuted before). Also the dependencies in both tools are
> handled different.
>
> And at last, we have apt,
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 04:25:20AM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 28/8/24 03:03, Hans wrote:
> > So, my question is: Which one is recommended, when updating and upgrading is
> > used in a script, so that it causes as little as possible pain?
[…]
> apt update &&
explain, why aptitude and apt-get every time reloads the new list, when
one of the other was eecuted before). Also the dependencies in both tools are
handled different.
And at last, we have apt, which (as far as I now), soemtimes is calling apt-
get, and sometimes is calling aptitude.
This is
On 27 Aug 2024 19:28 +, from amaca...@einval.com (Andrew M.A. Cater):
> apt-get [...] is recommended for upgrading between Debian major releases.
Is it, though?
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#updating-lists
https://www.debian.org/releases/stab
erent cache structures, and if tool A has been
used since tool B was last used, next time tool B is used it will not
know what has been upgraded while it has 'been away', and will refresh
its own cache.
>
> And at last, we have apt, which (as far as I now), soemtimes is
> cal
On 27 Aug 2024 21:03 +0200, from hans.ullr...@loop.de (Hans):
> So, my question is: Which one is recommended, when updating and upgrading is
> used in a script, so that it causes as little as possible pain?
apt-get and friends, including the dpkg set of tools if necessary.
I believe ap
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:03:02PM +0200, Hans wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> This is somehow rather irritating!
>
> So, my question is: Which one is recommended, when updating and upgrading is
> used in a script, so that it causes as little as possible pain?
>
apt-get is
itude update loads its own list and is not using the list from
> apt-get (otherwise it could not explain, why aptitude and apt-get
> every time reloads the new list, when one of the other was eecuted
> before). Also the dependencies in both tools are handled different.
>
> And at
and apt-get every time reloads the new list, when
one of the other was eecuted before). Also the dependencies in both tools are
handled different.
And at last, we have apt, which (as far as I now), soemtimes is calling apt-
get, and sometimes is calling aptitude.
This is somehow rather irritating
вт, 27 авг. 2024 г. в 21:26, Richard Owlett :
>
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
>
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch02s01.en.html
"""
2.1.2. CPU Support
Both AMD64 and Intel 64 processo
Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 08/27/2024 08:36 AM, David wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:06, Richard Owlett
> > wrote:
> >> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors
> >> support current Debian release.
> >>
> >> I
Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 08/27/2024 08:14 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> > > current Debian release.
...
> > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch0
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
<https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.en.html>
> I have three machines whose processors are 64 bi
On Aug 27, 2024, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
>
> I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
> Processors identified by running lscpu:
>
> Machine 1:
> Ar
On 08/27/2024 08:36 AM, David wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:06, Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
current Debian release.
I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
To add to Dan's reply:
https://www.
On 08/27/2024 08:14 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
current Debian release.
I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
Processors identified by running lscpu:
Machine 1:
Architecture:
> Will the OS linked to by https://www.debian.org/ run on all three?
Yes, on all three, both using the i386 (which is being phased out) or
the amd64 ports.
Stefan
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:06, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
>
> I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
To add to Dan's reply:
https://www.debian.org/ports/
https:
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
>
> I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
> Processors identified by running lscpu:
>
> Machine 1:
> Architecture: i686
>
I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
current Debian release.
I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
Processors identified by running lscpu:
Machine 1:
Architecture: i686
Model name: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU M 540 @ 2.
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:38:20AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > cross-graded to amd64 only as far as running the amd64 kernel while
> > leaving all of the user land and the primary dpkg architecture as
> > i386. This is a supported configuration.
>
> It's not just "supported": it's ba
> cross-graded to amd64 only as far as running the amd64 kernel while
> leaving all of the user land and the primary dpkg architecture as
> i386. This is a supported configuration.
It's not just "supported": it's basically the recommended setup for an
i386 install, since the support for the i386
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:41 AM Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread.
> /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit.
Which bus width do you want to know? Address, data, pci, agp, something else?
Jeff
1 - 100 of 2442 matches
Mail list logo
