The thing is I wasn't sure if ppa-purge would just remove the exact package
while leaving the dependencies alone. That's why I didn't use it. I'm just
happy I didn't have to wipe my system for the 20th time. I'm very thankful
for being able to access all of this information on the web and
I just fixed it. :D
In the past I always just shrugged and said, you know what, I'll just do a
clean install... However, this time I decided I try to figure this out. It
turns out the main issue my upgrade wasn't working was because I had lots of
packages that were from non-trisquel
Yes it does! However apt is broken and even using wget to install packages
that may be missing doesn't acknowledge the pkg files as being installable.
:/
Magic Banana, after rebooting the system shows a black screen and won't allow
me to login at all :/
Thanks Magic. I appreciate your response.
Booting back in works fine. But I feel like some things may be semi-broken if
the installer says it could not complete... I will update this thread with
pictures of the behavior I find post reboot.
=== OTHER SEMI-RELATED ISSUE ===
By the way, on my
Yeah, in the Secure Boot world someone could make their own key and enroll it
to be trusted in the computer. But yeah, I imagine that most distros that
support Secure Boot probably take the time (and spend the $99) to get signed
by Microsoft's key so that they can be trusted and "run out of
"Since when does Secure Boot require Microsoft's approval? That sounds like a
version of Restricted Boot."
This is too simplistic of a view. Allow me to explain then. I'll copy various
things from Matthew Garrett's blog at https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org here.
Starting from scratch...
Is self-signed key now a thing? Linux Foundation is a member of UEFI.org but
I was under the impression all distributions used Microsoft's key. I may be
wrong as I haven't been following the debate lately.
Hm? But this is what you said:
"With the exception of Secure Boot, which requires Microsoft to sign stuff
for the project so it can be trusted."
Since when does Secure Boot require Microsoft's approval? That sounds like a
version of Restricted Boot.
To both onpon4 and lolider, No I did meant Secure Boot. In a Secure Boot
environment the user gets to decide what keys the computer treats as trusted
or not. Restricted Boot describes a different setup where they can't.
The FSF even draws this distinction: "When done correctly, 'Secure Boot'
Blueman package is not installed but bluez the bluetooth stack is.
Install blueman ’sudo apt install blueman’.
Hi all!
I have been lurking for a while now, following the development of Trisquel 8.
Does flidas come with bluetooth support out of the box? I have a Qualcomm
Atheros AR9462 card and it has me a little bit confused, supposedly this card
should have functional WiFi and Bluetooth without
... Does anyone know why my upgrade from Trisquel 7 to 8 is failing?
Check your logs. What do they say? Linux-libre had some deblobbing changes
with 4.16 - see
http://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2018-April/003284.html
The most notable one here is changing from EINVAL ("Invalid argument") to
ENOENT ("No such file or directory") which, in some cases,
Is there any possibility the bootloader might have loaded the wireless card's
firmware (perhaps newly so because it's using UEFI)?
2018-04-16T03:09:41+0200 ja...@bluehome.net wrote:
> "now is booting as a... UEFI OS?"
>
> Yup. Trisquel 8 should be fully UEFI compatible. Yay! With the
> exception of Secure Boot, which requires Microsoft to sign stuff for
> the project so it can be trusted. Our fearless leader said on IRC that
Yeah,it should be restricted not 'secure'. When they say 'security', always
ask "whose security?"
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot
Don't you mean Restricted Boot?
So it's Monday 16. Should I be uncorking a grape juice and rolling up in
preparation to celebrate the release of Flidas? Or has it been decided enough
things need fixing that the release needs to wait a little longer?
"now is booting as a... UEFI OS?"
Yup. Trisquel 8 should be fully UEFI compatible. Yay! With the exception of
Secure Boot, which requires Microsoft to sign stuff for the project so it can
be trusted. Our fearless leader said on IRC that that's not gonna happen. No
kowtowing to Microsoft.
Hello
I din't have any problems installing Trisquel 8 mini i686.iso in an netbook
atom N280.
checksum md5 ok, live image done witn "creador de discos de arranque" in USB
ok, booting and installing ok.
Success installing Trisquel 8 amd64.iso on a desktop ASUS/Intel.
Some problems whith
Loldier wrote:
"[Fedora Media Writer] writes any ISO."
My apologies, you are of course correct. I skim read the first of the links
you shared, and got the impression that the instructions given there was the
limit of what the program could do. Now that I look again, the images make it
I recently attempted an upgrade from my existing laptops install of Trisquel
7 to Trisquel 8 and the upgrade failed. I have many screenshots showing each
prompt. Where do I post this?
It writes any ISO. Just select "custom image" and pick a file from your
drive. The only part that would be changed is the automatic download which
points to Fedora.
It might also be good to have a wiki page on some of the common problems
people run into when trying to create and use bootable USBs. For example, I
flashed both main and Trisquel-Mini versions of Flidas onto an old 4GB USB
with Etcher. Trisquel-Mini worked initially, but failed during the
I'm guessing that modifying Fedora Media Writer, to make it work with
Debian-based systems and burn distros other than Fedora, is probably more
work than forking Etcher and removing the offending behaviour. Don't let me
discourage you though, if that's your itch, you go ahead and scratch it!
There's a lot that could be said on both the topics in this comments.
I've started a new thread to discuss Mac-specific problems with Trisquel
here:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/getting-trisquel-8-working-macs
I've also started a new thread on the user respect issues with Etcher here:
Is there a way to download images, checksums, etc of Trisquel 8 over https?
For now, all the links are plain, unencrypted http
I'd love to contribute; just don't see how it's feasible. I've tried Trisquel
on macs many times in the past and now with the latest ISO. Etcher is no
magic silver bullet. DD, my personal favourite, or any other program is
capable of writing the ISO to disk but they won't show up. There's
OK, so at least two of us have access to Macs for testing (my wife's is an
older MacBook - about 7-8 years old), that's great. It would be great to come
up with a fairly reliable set of instructions for installing Flidas on Macs.
Shall we start a separate thread to focus on this?
Trisquel 8 doesn't work. Burned an ISO to DVD using Finder's built in burner.
All is fine but the disc won't show up at boot.
At the same time, Debian 9 and Puppy Xenialpup boot just fine.
I wonder if Red Hats's Fedora Media Writer could be modified to download and
write Trisquel ISO to USB. It's available for Win/Mac/Linux.
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/04/26/fedora-media-writer-the-fastest-way-to-create-live-usb-boot-media/
MagicBanana:
>> Software dos not necessarily stop working because it is old. > If there is
usable free software to install the live ISO, let us recommend that! We value
freedom over convenience.
Just tried using the Flidas USB I successfully used on my AA1 to boot up a
live session on my wife's Mac (El Capitan). No dice. I held down the Option
key, and got a screen allowing me to choose boot sources, but it didn't pick
up the OS on the USB.
Do I have to use a live USB *made* on a
Success! Today I:
* used wget to download trisquel_8.0_i686.iso - check!
* checked the md5sum - check!
* used Startup Disk Creator in Belenos to create a bootable USB - check!
* rebooted using the USB - check!
* checked the integrity of the USB - check!
* rebooted and launched a live session
Since my last post, I managed to get a bootable system by extracting the .iso
archive onto a formatted flash drive, having one FAT partition, taking up the
whole disk. Once I booted this version, I tried running the screen reader,
and got it started, only to have it turn off within 5
"Given that Trisquel, like its Ubuntu base, is meant to be the most
user-friendly distro for people new to GNU-Linux,"
I would say Trisquel is meant to be the most user-friendly distro that is
fully free. That last clause matters a lot, since there are other distros
that put
I downloaded the 64-bit version from Jenkins.trisquel.info/makeiso/RC/ and
wrote it to flash drive using the 'dd' command; resulting image is not
bootable. I used http in the browser, which works for all other distros'
live images but Trisquel.
I'm also getting a weird issue with downloading trisquel_8.0_i686.iso from:
http://jenkins.trisquel.info/makeiso/iso/RC/
I've tried it twice, and both times, it almost downloaded, then displayed an
error in the ABrowser downloads menu, saying "file moved or missing". I
haven't moved the
InfraRecorder works just fine with win 10. It's practical because it need not
be installed. There's a zip portable archive.
Windows 10 burning an image is easy. Just open Explorer, right-click on the
ISO and select 'Burn to disc'. Pix to follow if somebody needs them to write
up instructions.
What’s up with this devel not found? I get this when attempting to initiate
a download from the RC link.
My wife has a Mac (running El Capitan), which I can use (with her permission)
to test the MacOS instructions. We no longer own any devices running Windows
(yay!), but I'm sure there are GNUbies out there who still have a dual-boot,
or run Windows on a separate PC. Anybody willing to do some
Given that Trisquel, like its Ubuntu base, is meant to be the most
user-friendly distro for people new to GNU-Linux, what are the recommended
methods for installing Trisquel for people currently using:
* Windows
* Mac
* Ubuntu
Is there any kind of 'introducing Trisquel' wiki page or document
Hi david, thanks! This is what I'm waiting for.
Yeah, the torrents never work on the development versions.
> What's the most appropriate way of reporting these bugs?
https://trisquel.info/en/project/issues
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I found a couple smaller bugs. One is a typo, and another relates to the
spell checker/dictionary in Abrowser.
What's the most appropriate way of reporting these bugs?
When trying to open the file "trisquel_8.0_amd64.iso.torrent" in
Transmission, I get the error: "Tracker gave an error: "Requested download is
not authorized for use with this tracker"."
Beautiful!
I Googled "tee" before my post, but I wasn't sure if it would work with a
terminal session like this.
Thanks!
> $ sudo apt upgrade > upgrade.log
Actually, never mind. If you do this the output won't be printed to the
terminal, so you won't be prompted to confirm that you want to upgrade
packages. Instead use
$ sudo apt upgrade | tee upgrade.log
which will both print the output to the terminal and
> how would we capture the
> terminal output during the upgrade/install?
If I understand your question correctly, you can write the output of a terminal
command to a file with '>'.
$ the-command > the-file.log
or in the case of your question,
$ sudo apt upgrade > upgrade.log
signature.asc
That's great news.
Is there a document or URL that you could point us to that gives instructions
on how to capture upgrade/install output?
I know about /var/log/dist-upgrade, but how would we capture the terminal
output during the upgrade/install? Or is that not valuable?
And any other
Hi all!
Trisquel 8 is almost ready, and we've got a full set of Release Candidate ISO
images for testing at http://jenkins.trisquel.info/makeiso/iso/RC/
These latest images should have fixed all the issues some of us had with
bootable USB drives and untimely initramfs prompts. They also
54 matches
Mail list logo
