Limiting the capacity of SD cards for the pi

That is rather simplistic. It is probably that your supply is not delivering at the full voltage when more current is taken.

Check in you syslog entries for entries indicating that the voltage has gone low. The onboard low 5v detection is given before the voltage has gone low enough tro make the board fail.

I have a power supply that supplies a pi4 and an attached USB3 5inch harddrive, and when the drive is driven hard the current drawn draws the

Jim

That is still pretty crap and the recieved wisdom is that without the USB drawing power (what usb drives do you have, if any) it shouldnt be more than an amp draw ever

^^^^^

whoops 3.5in

I've just spent a couple of days attempting to get debian 12 to run from a USB drive. The process involves creating an install usb device first. I managed this fine and it would boot up fine instead of the W10 on the C drive. :-)

Then you boot to the install usb and then also plug in another usb drive on which the installer installs debian. I watched multiple video first to make sure I was up to speed. It's a long process.

It takes the best part of an hour and then comes the point of booting debian from the new OS drive. Simply, it doesn't boot! It instantly without any preamble or error goes to a grey screen, dead as dead.

I tried it in 3 pcs, same in all of them. Repeated the whole process, still the same.

At this point I remembered why when nearly 20 years ago and had to use some linux at work I remembered how I hated it. :-(

I may find the energy later to try ubuntu later, it looks a simpler install.

I got thinking....

Going back to shrinking a working project image.. Why not create another empty drive with roughly the correct but much smaller 2nd partition drive. First partition I presume fat32 and second ext4.

Then copy the files across.

Would that work?

I still have the issue of saving it out somehow but would that be faster/easier?

Cheers,

Bob.

I am not sure that would work. Though I cant quite work out why...I am thinking that the boot loader would need to be explicitly told to put a boot sector on the stick rather than on the PCs hard drive.

Haven't you got a gash PC you could make 'linux only'?

Try Linux Mint, it is even simpler than Ubuntu

They really went to town making it simple

And things are not what they were 20 years ago,

Yes, but it is very slow and there might be issues if the partition IDs are different

What is probably better is to install Raspios and *then* copy the [important] files across

It might be. The problem you are having is like the problem I used to have with OS/X

- there is this deep dark forest with this bright sunlit path through it, but it doesn't go to where you want to end up, and the moment you strike off through the forest there are no signposts whatsoever, just skeletons of those who went before.

It asks! During the building of the second drive it says it can only detect Windows Vista (I'm using W10) and claims it should be fine to place the boot loader on the C drive giving a choice at boot up.

It also offers the choice to place it on any available drive. I stuck it on the new ext4 debian 12 usb drive. A fat lot of good that did.

Well I do have an unused for years XP upstairs but wife wants it gone. Keeps asking me to remove the hard disc. You do want me to survive this don't you?

Ok, I'll look at that.

Even worse you mean? :-)

Don't know about partition IDs.

I can't recall how large the ext4 partition is after just an install, I'll have to look.

Splendid image of the reality.

Bob.

What partitions are mounted where is controlled by a file - /etc/fstab This *used* to specify which exact bit of *hardware* the drive was attached to, So /dev/sda was the *first* SATA port or whatever. Then people started hot plugging USB drives in and out and it was uncertain which *logical* port they would appear on, so the system was modified to give every partition a unique ID (UUID) so the boot loader would always load the correct partition, but no other. This has made it bloody difficult to grab a disk with a random partition and boot from it.

Not very big. There is a one time script that blows it up to fill the 'disk' after first boot. You could copy files *after* that

Do try Mint. It doesnt work any better once installed, but it is a heck of a sight easier to get installed. They went to a huge amount of trouble on the installation process, and it is built over ubuntu which is built on debian, but the work went in to making it very easy for windows uses to migrate to.

There are I think four flavours. LXDE - very bare and basic - XFCE. likewise a bit bare and basic, MATE which is very XP like and Cinnamon which is very pretty but I find it less usable than MATE.

I've tried it! I tried MATE as you suggested. It was a far simpler process and it worked out of the box.

It doesn't ask about Languages and assumes USA english which I found an issue setting up wifi password that contains a #. But wifi up and running and it remembers over a reboot.

Yes, I will get around to partition shrinking but before then I tried sharing a folder via smb. No, looked it up on line how to do it, all the suggested menu options don't exist so I assume this is because it's on a usb device not a proper install. Shame cos without sharing it's about as much use as ...

But later I'll try shrinking partitions - AGAIN.

Bob.

It usually does. I had a laptop and I tried debianm on it which motsly worked but didnt have half te software I wanted, then ubuntu which for some reason didn't work at all, then mint Mate. This has to be back around 2007. It Just Worked, and I have stuck with it ever since. For *what I want on a desktop* it is simply the best. On servers I am happy with any flavour of debian/ubuntu/mint/Raspios

It should ask what keyboard layout and what dictionaries to use somewhere. These are configurable vi the keyboard app and the language app in the control centre

Oh, no that will work OK

I don't use it these days but IIRC the safe and fast way to get it to work is to edit /etc/smb.conf

I don't think it is installed by default on Mint however. Only the client, not the server.

You need to use the synaptic package manager to install it (samba)

Then the setup stuff will work. Samba is veryt solid these days

Bloody Linux.

I installed an operating system that doesn't have working SMB as standard. I then start googling how to add this essential. Would you believe there are chat sites with long scripts you have to run to add this.

I can so see why despite claims from the linux people that everything is sorted now and linux is just like windows the truth is anything but. To do the simplest of day one things you're in the command line.

After 20 years plus still the same story.

Linux is for geeks, not ordinary folk.

Bob.

In article (Dans l'article) snipped-for-privacy@sick-of-spam.invalid, Bob Latham snipped-for-privacy@sick-of-spam.invalid wrote (écrivait) :

Let's remain confident that the situation has not become so catastrophic, have we?...

As TNT says it has the client which allows you to access shares on Windows, it does not have the server installed by default, which isn't needed unless you want Windows machines to access shares on it.

It's part of the Linux philosophy NOT to shovel in and enable every possible network service by default, potentially exposing security vulnerabilities.

Installing samba sever does not need long scripts, it is one apt install and one config file to edit. Google better chat sites!

---druck

It's no fun getting Windows to talk NFS either. Still on my BSD NAS I just installed samba and edited smb4.conf to set up a bunch of SMB shares.

What a horrible thought, what's the point of a difference that makes no difference?

Where else would you want to be ? All this new fangled gooey WIMP stuff will never catch on.

Linux does /have/ working SMB as standard, but it's not /installed/ as standard. It's easy to install - both the client and the server. I only have the client installed on my Ubuntu installation because I don't need to share its drive. I've got shared NAS drives, which of course are on a Linux machine (a Raspberry Pi - it's good enough for my needs).

If you want to install the client or server, just follow instructions from a good web site.

David

No, its just not windows, that's all.

If you install a distro that is optimised as desktop CLIENT why would you expect it to serve as a SERVER?

The fundamental difference is the Linux is not 'install once and everything you never needed is now loaded on your computer, which is now as lively as Brian the snail'

A core linux of what you *probably* want *most* is installed, and the rest *should you require it* is only three mouse clicks and a password away.

Its the price you pay for flexibility and efficiency.

LOL!

Yes, I get that fair enough.

Yes, okay. But surely for a "sorted now" OS something better than this should be default now. Is it really that hard to add a switch just like in windows to enable features? A switch to enable samba server is that really a surrender? Maybe even another with

Does linux want to be main stream?

Not yet seen that command unless it's the same as for raspi ie. sudo apt-get install samba samba-common-bin Bet it isn't, that would be too easy. :)

smb.conf I assume. I am a little familiar with that.

How do you know which ones are better than the linux mint chat group?

Not had much luck yet with google searching. I've looked at this synaptic whatever and searched for samba and it lists dozens of files and packages do I need one or all of them - not much in the way of help or clues.

I can't believe it's so hard to get a "sorted" OS to share !!

Bob.

I didn't know it was optimised in such a way, how would I know that? Did i have a choice in that decision?

Okay, I get that. Fair enough but....

1. Why isn't it just a switch in an add functionality box?

Just like Control Panel => Programs and Features => Turn Windows Features On and Off. You switch something on and it installs what is needed automagically.

1. Having failed 1 above, why is there not easy to find help to advise which mouse clicks?

Not really is it? It's the price you pay for using an OS that doesn't give you easy to use functionality choices. It prefers to let you fish around on google for hours and still not find the answer.

Imagine right button clicking a folder, an option in the menu is share folder. You click it. It then links you to a text file that explains the service needs to be installed and how to do it.

Off and on, I've spent two days on this and still don't have the answers.

Bob.

It already is. More servers run Linux than anything else. Just not in PC world or Currys.

Of course its that easy.

In fact, its even easier, because there is a nice windows like application called 'synaptic' that you will find in the main menu down the left hand column - its called 'package manager' . Windows doesn't have it, because you have to spend money to install things on Windows. This is free.

If you invoke that and search for 'samba' and scroll down till you find the package called 'samba' and select it and than install that selection. Samba will magically be installed and due to the amazingly clever design of Linux you wont even have to reboot the computer

just 'SAMBA' itself which is described as:

"SMB/CIFS file, print, and login *server* for Unix."

It isn't.

It's just not dumbed down totally to the point of being unusable.

Fundamentally you have installed a pretty good version of Linux, but you want to do something that isn't the installation default.

So you need to learn how to install a package.

That's all.

Two ways - use the command line which is quicker if you are au fait with it, and know exactly what you want, or use synaptic to do it the 'windows way'