My Linux Based Questions

By +longgonebn
in Linux

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

It's not working.

UUID=12498dda-899a-4e48-9d6e-a5372340f3dd /media/Movies ext4 uid=1000,gid=1000,umask=0022,sync,auto,nosuid,rw,nouser 0 0

This was taken from an example I found..

uid=1000,gid=1000,umask=0022 do I need this...I see this no where on the archwiki page?

Also, I am user bman....should i be using nouser, or should I put user or users

** I ended up putting this

UUID=12498dda-899a-4e48-9d6e-a5372340f3dd /media/Movies ext4 sync,auto,nosuid,rw,nouser 0 0

And all mounted without issue.

Grand Master

firey

Posted
Posted

you don't need users because you want it to be open. UID=1000 means that it will be accessible for your user by default (unless overriding policies are set on files) and gid=1000 means that your users group will have access to. So it's more of a permissions thing. You could try and remove those settings, but you may run into permissions (mounted as root) issues.

What is not working?

Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

As I stated above.

With those details it would give error, I removed it and had only

UUID=12498dda-899a-4e48-9d6e-a5372340f3dd /media/Movies ext4 sync,auto,nosuid,rw,nouser 0 0

And everything mounted without issue, my programs that use it are still working. So it's working.

Thanks guys.

Grand Master

+Majesticmerc MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Wikipedia tells me that uid and gid and unmask are for FAT file systems only, which probably explains why they don't work.

If you want to simplify things, try simply using "default" option only (instead of specifying all the options like sync, auto, nosuid, etc manually), and see if that works. Then if it doesn't do what you want, adjust as necessary.

  • +longgonebn
  • Like 1
Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

So I got a chance to reboot since doing all that, and everything worked fine, in terms of mounting.

But now, copying or moving files to these drives are VERY slow. A 1GB file would have taken 1 min or less (usually less), it's now like 15 minutes or something, ridiculous!

I am assuming it's the auto mounting that did something, but what could have caused that?

Grand Master

+Majesticmerc MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

My guess is because you specified "sync" writes, which you don't need for an internal drive. If necessary, you can further boost performance if you add "noatime" as an option, although it won't write "last accessed" times anymore. :)

Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

Yea see I didn't know that. That's what you get for copying stuff from the internet lol

And I was just reading up on noatime, sounds good, but what do you mean by "last accessed"? What exactly will change when using my system?

Also, can I keep defaults, and just add noatime beside it?

Grand Master

+Majesticmerc MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Yes, you can just use "defaults,noatime" without issue. Basically, every time you read or write a file, a timestamp in the file inode will be updated. This means that you can view the time that the file was last accessed if necessary. The obvious downside of this is that every read is also a write, and this has a moderate impact on performance.

'noatime' will prevent these access timestamps from being written, which reduces I/O usage, which is good for performance. This is of course at the cost of the last-access time being updated, which can cause issues for some older email clients and such, which rely on the difference between last accessed time and last modified time to determine if an email is unread.

Looking into it though, Ubuntu has made "relatime" a default option for ext file systems since around 2010 anyway (see here), so you'd probably see no benefit from using noatime anyway. The defaults should be just fine ;)

An explanation of noatime vs relatime can be found here: http://linux.koolsolutions.com/2009/01/30/installing-linux-on-usb-part-4-noatime-and-relatime-mount-options/

Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

I don't think I have asked this hear, and haven't found a good solution anywhere else.

I have the xscreensaver setup and works great. The only issue is that it comes on even with full screen applications running.

Alright, I use VLC that disables it while its open, great,...uh no. The problem with that is even if I have that VLC window minimized or in the small size (not full screen) the screensaver is still disabled, stupid.

Also, that doesn't work for flash sites like you tube.

Any ideas?

Grand Master

firey

Posted
Posted

I don't think I have asked this hear, and haven't found a good solution anywhere else.

I have the xscreensaver setup and works great. The only issue is that it comes on even with full screen applications running.

Alright, I use VLC that disables it while its open, great,...uh no. The problem with that is even if I have that VLC window minimized or in the small size (not full screen) the screensaver is still disabled, stupid.

Also, that doesn't work for flash sites like you tube.

Any ideas?

The same happens on windows with VLC. I think it is a setting as it disables my windows screenwaver

Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

Yes, the setting I want enabled because it stops the screensaver from happening when watching videos, but it's like it's not smart enough to know that if I have it minimized I want the screensaver to work.

Grand Master

firey

Posted
Posted

Yes, the setting I want enabled because it stops the screensaver from happening when watching videos, but it's like it's not smart enough to know that if I have it minimized I want the screensaver to work.

I get that on Windows. If I have VLC Open the screensaver doesn't work. Even minimized or without a video loaded.

Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

A new problem, well not new but haven't posted about it.

This has happened before but let it go because it's only once in a blue moon.

Sometimes randomly the VLC Icon on Unity stops working, at first the minimize and restore feature of the button stop working, then eventually there is no icon at all.

I have to reboot to get it to work again. Sometimes it does come back and start working again, but most of the time no.

Ideas, can't seem to find any information about it.

Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

I guess as the rest of the internet, no one here knows either. Alright ignore that for now.

I have Chrome installed and is my main program, I use it for everything. Does anyone know how to properly restart chrome?

When I close Chrome, it's still running in the background, if I look at the System Monitor, its still there. If I try to close all 20 processes it can sometimes cause issues with accounts and stuff, so I don't want to do that, besides it taking long.

I want to be able to restart chrome because after awhile, it uses a lot of resources and kills my fairly old system. Instead of restarting all the time, I'd rather restart chrome.

In Windows, if you exited it, it seemed to close fully, Ubuntu it does not.

Ideas?

Grand Master

Brandon H Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

I guess as the rest of the internet, no one here knows either. Alright ignore that for now.

I have Chrome installed and is my main program, I use it for everything. Does anyone know how to properly restart chrome?

When I close Chrome, it's still running in the background, if I look at the System Monitor, its still there. If I try to close all 20 processes it can sometimes cause issues with accounts and stuff, so I don't want to do that, besides it taking long.

I want to be able to restart chrome because after awhile, it uses a lot of resources and kills my fairly old system. Instead of restarting all the time, I'd rather restart chrome.

In Windows, if you exited it, it seemed to close fully, Ubuntu it does not.

Ideas?

by default chrome allows extensions to run in the background (even while closed) this could be what you're experiencing when there are still chrome processes running after you close the browser

you can disable this option in settings at the very bottom of the advanced section

Grand Master

+longgonebn Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

No, I do use that feature, I have a few running in the background for a reason.

But, on Windows it had a Chrome Icon beside the clock, if you right click that and exit, Chrome fully closes. Ubuntu does not have that ability.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • UK nudity blockers are a looming privacy disaster, we must be able to see the source code

      By ExecutiveFunction404 · Posted

      Wonder what MPs have ties to these privacy/verification/data harvesting companies that are going to step in this time. Last time under the Tories half the cabinet had fingers in the pies, heck even the PM and his wife at the time was working for silicon valley, probably made a fortune.
    • Google Chrome is killing all uBlock Origin bypasses, Microsoft Edge, Opera to follow

      By hellowalkman · Posted

      Google Chrome is killing all uBlock Origin bypasses, Microsoft Edge, Opera to follow by Sayan Sen For a while now the transition away from Manifest V2 (MV2) to MV3 has been on-going and it looks like it is entering its final phase of deprecation, at least, in the case of Google Chrome. A recent discussion thread in the w3c WebExtensions Community Group GitHub repo has highlighted how the latest and upcoming versions of the most popular browser are expected to be its final releases with support for MV2 extensions. Chromium contributor Andrey Bershanskiy shared details about recent Chromium changes and according to comments from Google engineer Devlin Cronin, Chrome has now started removing the flags that previously controlled MV2 availability. kExtensionManifestV2Disabled, the Chromium feature flag that allowed controlled disabling of MV2 add-ons, is now completely removed, which means you will likely no longer find uBlock Origin in your browser extensions list. He wrote: "The kExtensionManifestV2Disabled feature has been default-enabled for over a year. Remove the feature and the effectively-dead code. ... Any tests that relied on being in the "warning" phase (i.e., with the kExtensionManifestV2Disabled) for their sole behavior testing are removed, since this stage is no longer reachable." Cronin further explained why MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in supported Chrome versions as maintaining the associated functionality indefinitely is no longer possible. He cited growing technical difficulties and implementation complexities as well as security concerns. He wrote: "MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in any supported version of Chrome, and we are removing support for them and the associated functionality. We won't be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately). Of course, other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire. Unfortunately, we won't be putting code behind a compilation flag ... We won't be removing all the MV2 code wholesale right away, so many of these things will continue working for awhile (but they will go away eventually, and some may go away sooner than others)." What this essentially means is that the tricks and bypasses that were used to keep MV2 extensions like uBlock Origin and others alive will not work any more on Chrome, or at least not for very long. For example the Windows Registry mod that could extend MV2 availability will cease to function after Chromium version 151. Here is a rundown of the changes coming in the final such releases of Chromium releases: Chromium 150 lost ExtensionManifestV2Disabled option Chromium 151 will loose ExtensionManifestV2Unsupported option Chromium 151 will loose ExtensionManifestV2Availability option Chromium 151 will likely loose AllowLegacyMV2Extensions option Other Chromium-based browsers like Opera and Microsoft Edge could soon follow suit too. Although it is not specified, Edge began disabling uBlock Origin back in February, and Opera could also stop the functioning of MV2 add-ons, even though it had committed to support MV2 for longer in October 2024. uBlock Origin developer Raymond Hill (gorhill) apparently stated the following: "For Opera I did submit 1.70.0 rather late, but this was weeks ago. A while ago I received an email from Opera that they plan to abandon MV2-based extension so maybe they are no longer allocating resources for reviewing such extensions." The email which developers like Gorhill mentions was received from Opera last year. Here is what it seemingly said: Hence for now the only Chromium browser that seems to be on-board fully with MV2 support is Brave, and perhaps Vivaldi as well. Meanwhile if you want to ditch Chromium browsers entirely then Mozilla Firefox is an excellent alternative as MV3 and MV2 are both supported. Of course the easiest solution is to switch to uBlock Origin Lite if you want to remain on Chrome, as it is MV3-based, but from our experience, uBO Lite does not seem to be as good as the original non-Lite version. Source: w3C (GitHub repo) As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support!
    • UK nudity blockers are a looming privacy disaster, we must be able to see the source code

      By ParadiseLost · Posted

      Write to your MP 😄 Like believing in Santa. Total surveillance IS the goal. Wake up.
    • Politically funny images of the World

      By PsYcHoKiLLa · Posted

    • UK nudity blockers are a looming privacy disaster, we must be able to see the source code

      By RejZoR · Posted

      This whole dumb age verification thing needs to die and be replaced by giving parents tools to control devices. Why am I required to plaster my ID all over the internet to prove I'm old enough when parents should be the ones dictating what their kids are doing on their phones. Apple released great set of tools for iPhones coming to iOS 27 that do just that. Why are governments not mandating that kind of control to phone makers to built them into phones. This whole thing is so absolutely idiotic it's wild.

  • Recent Achievements

    • Very Popular
      Captain_Eric earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • One Month Later
      amusc earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      511
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      220
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      92
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      90
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      83
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!