General Linux Chat and Small Questions v. Year of the Linux Desktop! - Hardware & Software

[QUOTE=PredGD;50672867]ugh, monitors in linux are annoying. apparently you can't use two monitors via iGPU and GPU if you're on the official nvidia drivers. nouveau on the other hand allows this but Pascal support is currently non existent. I don't expect them to support it any time soon. stuck with a single monitor for linux stuff for now then [editline]8th July 2016[/editline] decided to go Plasma this time around too, very nice DE to be honest. looks both modern and sleek compared to KDE4[/QUOTE] This is honestly the reason why I'm using AMD, because Linux support is the most smooth thing I've ever had. But then again, I'm still using my ATi Radeon HD 4670 because money. I've heard a lot of mixed things about the 300 series, but never had the chance to fiddle with any of them. nVidia on the other hand I've never had any success with, with the exception of my workstations mini-ITX GPU that seemingly works out of the box on Sabayon Linux. Didn't anywhere else, but they managed to make it flawless somehow.

[QUOTE=PredGD;50672867]ugh, monitors in linux are annoying. apparently you can't use two monitors via iGPU and GPU if you're on the official nvidia drivers. nouveau on the other hand allows this but Pascal support is currently non existent. I don't expect them to support it any time soon. stuck with a single monitor for linux stuff for now then [editline]8th July 2016[/editline] decided to go Plasma this time around too, very nice DE to be honest. looks both modern and sleek compared to KDE4[/QUOTE] Plasma is pretty but I just can't stand it for some reason. I found myself switching back to XFCE. [editline]8th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=mastersrp;50674054]This is honestly the reason why I'm using AMD, because Linux support is the most smooth thing I've ever had. But then again, I'm still using my ATi Radeon HD 4670 because money. I've heard a lot of mixed things about the 300 series, but never had the chance to fiddle with any of them. nVidia on the other hand I've never had any success with, with the exception of my workstations mini-ITX GPU that seemingly works out of the box on Sabayon Linux. Didn't anywhere else, but they managed to make it flawless somehow.[/QUOTE] Huh, I've always heard that Nvidia was the company you went for if you're a Linux gamer.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50674077]Plasma is pretty but I just can't stand it for some reason. I found myself switching back to XFCE. [editline]8th July 2016[/editline] Huh, I've always heard that Nvidia was the company you went for if you're a Linux gamer.[/QUOTE] It is. For performance reasons only, because AMD with open source drivers are amazing at every single point except 3D performance.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;50674151]It is. For performance reasons only, because AMD with open source drivers are amazing at every single point except 3D performance.[/QUOTE] Meanwhile Nivida rocks your world if you don't mind the proprietary.

[t]http://i.imgur.com/AEKbHFR.jpg[/t] Unfortunately due to the Canada Post lockout I don't have long enough standoffs to make this look as good, but the Pi cluster is now powered and ready to Beowulf. Also I found that network switch at the recycling depot, sweet score!

[QUOTE=Van-man;50674165]Meanwhile Nivida rocks your world if you don't mind the proprietary.[/QUOTE] I'm a sucker for free software, so I prefer AMD. I still mind the binary blobs, but I'm also a person who wants to play games.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;50674151]It is. For performance reasons only, because AMD with open source drivers are amazing at every single point except 3D performance.[/QUOTE] I've always found Nvidia's proprietary drivers to also be rock solid. It's just the AMD drivers that suck in one way or another. Though Nvidia's OpenGL performance also wasn't great before they got involved with Valve and actually started caring. (Before anyone brings up the ol' Linus quote: Nvidia aren't nice to work with from a kernel developer perspective, but that means nothing for the end user experience.)

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;50674381]Though Nvidia's OpenGL performance also wasn't great before they got involved with Valve and actually started caring. (Before anyone brings up the ol' Linus quote: Nvidia aren't nice to work with from a kernel developer perspective, but that means nothing for the end user experience.)[/QUOTE] Nividia also ain't nice to work with from X developers perspective. They insist on their own solutions that often makes a bigger mess. That said, their proprietary drivers are good as long as they don't fuck shit up.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;50674381]I've always found Nvidia's proprietary drivers to also be rock solid. It's just the AMD drivers that suck in one way or another. Though Nvidia's OpenGL performance also wasn't great before they got involved with Valve and actually started caring. (Before anyone brings up the ol' Linus quote: Nvidia aren't nice to work with from a kernel developer perspective, but that means nothing for the end user experience.)[/QUOTE] Maybe I've just been unlucky, that might be. I also cannot speak for the proprietary AMD drivers, as I don't use them, and haven't used them for more than 4 years. [editline]8th July 2016[/editline] I also want to point out how stupidly wrong flagdog is, that is amazing. Germany? How is that even possible. That's some seriously outdated GeoIP.

[QUOTE=IpHa;50669264]I think it would be difficult to add a back door without anyone noticing and once it's noticed all credibility will be lost. I can think of a few ways adding a backdoor would backfire. - Backdoor included in every installation: * Someone working on the project would leak info about it * There would have to be outgoing network traffic to a common group of servers. Some government/company/security researcher would notice this. - Backdoor target to one individual: * No guarantees on what mirror that person is using * Would require cooperation with all mirrors, or one if you can pinpoint which mirror they're using. * What if that mirror is in another country?[/QUOTE] There's always [url=http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf]Ken Thompson's compiler trojan[/url] which could secretly infect an entire distribution via the GCC maintainer.

Holy shit that is a good read.

[QUOTE=Looking4DatFk;50669003]How do you know that you are not getting backdoored distro? Let's say Canonical's Ubuntu for example. It is a high value target that something like NSA would do anything to get into. How confident can we be that they are not sold out? Now obviously a backdoor is not going to be shown in public source code but is going to be packaged into the official image installation file. I'm not saying like getting fed wrong image file by MITM or something, I'm more talking about Canonical itself packaging backdoor inside the image file, so don't mention hash integrity check - it is unrelated.[/QUOTE] A well hidden source code backdoor would be much harder to detect. See [url=http://www.underhanded-c.org/]the Underhanded C Contest[/url]. The NSA also seems to like introducing backdoors by placing their personnel on standards committees and just royally fucking everything up, e.g. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG]Dual_EC_DRBG[/url]. I've also heard the allegation that they're responsible for IPsec being the minefield it is, but I don't have a source for that right now.

Having a weird problem with qbittorrent on Arch. I've tried the latest git, git-stable, and official repo versions of qbittorrent and it affects all of them. Qbittorrent will crash with a segmentation fault apparently caused by libtorrent-rasterbar unless I delete the .conf files for qbittorrent. If I delete them, it'll start up and work fine (other than my settings being wiped obviously), but after I shut it down the problem comes back, and I'll have to delete the configuration file again to relaunch it. I didn't see an alternate version of libtorrent-rasterbar in the official repos or aur, but I'm not sure libtorrent-rasterbar is actually the problem since it seems to be something with the configuration files for qbittorrent.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;50674897]A well hidden source code backdoor would be much harder to detect. See [url=http://www.underhanded-c.org/]the Underhanded C Contest[/url]. The NSA also seems to like introducing backdoors by placing their personnel on standards committees and just royally fucking everything up, e.g. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG]Dual_EC_DRBG[/url]. I've also heard the allegation that they're responsible for IPsec being the minefield it is, but I don't have a source for that right now.[/QUOTE] IPsec is too slow anyway. [url]https://www.wireguard.io/quickstart/[/url]

There was this feature in highest security setting of Comodo Internet Security's firewall for Windows where every time a new application tried to access the network or any kind of new network access pattern was detected it would ask you to either Deny, Allow Once, Allow, etc. the traffic. Is there something similar for Ubuntu? I want to be asked for permission for every traffic stream.

fucking kill me, postfix is just fucking traaaaash, it works inside the lan but the port forward doesn't it receives the handshake (can see via tcpdump) but it just times out it works fine if i put the port forward to our regular mail server. god fucking damnit *nix

Yayyy postfix. It's terrible in all the opposite ways that exchange is god awful.

i've had no problems with it on my home server, but we get a shit ton of spam on exchange at work and i just want spamassassin on it, via a postfix relay but nope

I used to have to work on a postfix server that served over 2000 home user email accounts so my view on it may be skewed.

well i give up, postfix is broken. i should file a bug report

[img]https://rp.braxnet.org/scr/1468411035016.png[/img] [img]https://rp.braxnet.org/scr/1468411064866.png[/img] thanks linux

[QUOTE=Giraffen93;50701988][img]https://rp.braxnet.org/scr/1468411035016.png[/img] [img]https://rp.braxnet.org/scr/1468411064866.png[/img] thanks linux[/QUOTE] /etc/network/interfaces remove eth0 and eth1 then reconfigure networking. keep a backup of the file just in case which distro is this? I would keep that warning in mind and use the proper way of restarting networking instead of using something deprecated. [editline]13th July 2016[/editline] most likely there's gonna be duplicates in that interfaces file, just remove the duplicates and it'll work most likely

[QUOTE=PredGD;50701996]/etc/network/interfaces remove eth0 and eth1 then reconfigure networking. keep a backup of the file just in case which distro is this? I would keep that warning in mind and use the proper way of restarting networking instead of using something deprecated. [editline]13th July 2016[/editline] most likely there's gonna be duplicates in that interfaces file, just remove the duplicates and it'll work most likely[/QUOTE] [img]https://rp.braxnet.org/scr/1468411946262.png[/img] eth0 = directly to internet eth1 = in lan eth2 = in lan (but not needed) they're crucial for me being able to ssh into it, so no /etc/issue says debian stretch/sid which i doubt but okay i think this whole thing is that eth1 doesn't have a gateway to respond to the smtp requests

[QUOTE=Giraffen93;50702030][img]https://rp.braxnet.org/scr/1468411946262.png[/img] eth0 = directly to internet eth1 = in lan eth2 = in lan (but not needed) they're crucial for me being able to ssh into it, so no /etc/issue says debian stretch/sid which i doubt but okay i think this whole thing is that eth1 doesn't have a gateway to respond to the smtp requests[/QUOTE] you can only have a single gateway, comment out the gateway in eth1 and eth2 then try again.

[QUOTE=PredGD;50702074]you can only have a single gateway, comment out the gateway in eth1 and eth2 then try again.[/QUOTE] same error and i need both gateways, the lan connection can't use the external gateway

[QUOTE=Giraffen93;50702080]same error and i need both gateways, the lan connection can't use the external gateway[/QUOTE] did you restart the networking after making the change? if you need the gateways then you'll have to look for an alternate way of getting it to work as it doesn't support having more than a single gateway from what I could gather

[QUOTE=PredGD;50702086]did you restart the networking after making the change? if you need the gateways then you'll have to look for an alternate way of getting it to work as it doesn't support having more than a single gateway from what I could gather[/QUOTE] [t]https://rp.braxnet.org/scr/1468412922337.png[/t] no change windows does, why shouldn't linux - the one that's recommended for networking? having multiple nic's on multiple subnets shouldn't be a problem honestly

[QUOTE=Giraffen93;50702091][t]https://rp.braxnet.org/scr/1468412922337.png[/t] no change windows does, why shouldn't linux - the one that's recommended for networking? having multiple nic's on multiple subnets shouldn't be a problem honestly[/QUOTE] [url]http://askubuntu.com/questions/304898/trying-to-configure-eth0-and-eth1-but-failed-to-bring-up-eth1[/url] I believe you can have several gateways if you have more than one network card which I assume you have? networking isn't really a thing I've messed with a lot under Linux. though I do believe you have to explicitly state where your default gateway is then do some routing magic for the other gateways.

[QUOTE=PredGD;50702107][url]http://askubuntu.com/questions/304898/trying-to-configure-eth0-and-eth1-but-failed-to-bring-up-eth1[/url] I believe you can have several gateways if you have more than one network card which I assume you have? networking isn't really a thing I've messed with a lot under Linux. though I do believe you have to explicitly state where your default gateway is then do some routing magic for the other gateways.[/QUOTE] yeah i have two this really is too much effort though, i don't think anti-spam is worth all this bullshit

7 hours later. Yeah it's not possible to do this on Linux.