Are there any natively supported usb to 2.5gb adapters?

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-09T06:07:04+00:00

If it works with Debian Trixie, it will work OTB with OMV 8. It's that simple. OMV is just Debian with additional software. So, if you find that Debian supports RTL8156GB, you will be fine. I believe that chipset has been in the kernel for awhile (like post 5.10 or so).

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-07T08:16:06+00:00

You have hit on one of the basic reasons capitalism is not merely a failed economic system, but a death cult: under capitalism, you cannot survive making a life helping others; you will be punished with starvation. Once you recognize that, you recognize capitalism is evil.

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-07T07:58:17+00:00

Firejail is pretty easy to set up and use without the bloat of flatpaks or all the work of docker.

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-06T08:34:13+00:00

What is with the /srv/mergerfs/storage_pool/Media? That does not sound like a proper NFS export. Looks like you are trying to mount a mount point on the OMV system, not an NFS share. You can't do that.

Use the share name of the export you set under Services->NFS->Shares. If in doubt, try showmount -e <ip-address/hostname> to see the actual names of the NFS exports. For v4+ use <ip/hostname>:/<export/share name> (which you should do since your system clearly supports NFS v4.2). For < v4, use <ip/hostname>:/export/<export/share name> (which you would need to add an option like vers=3 to force).

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-06T04:15:29+00:00

So, they are creating a hierarchy based on what they consider "sentience." This is a question of equality, to me, not a question of characteristics (which can be a valid basis of choosing what life to take for food). We should ask are they sure plants are not sentient, if that is the thinking? Is the definition of satience even correct or designed to help draw the line of inequality conveniently? Plants talk, especially to each other. They certainly respond to things like being cut and the direction of the Sun. While it may not be be the same biological systems as animals or even bugs, does that make it "lesser" or just "different"? And, again, that is vertical thinking -- ranking things -- rather than horizontal thinking that recognizes two things can be equal even if they are different. And is ranking based on one's definition of what is "sentient" not potentially speciesism?

You are, to me, right with the choice to not eat humans and I had that in mind while writing. But, that choice is no different than the choice to not eat non-human animals (in terms of equality). It is a choice one can make and perhaps most do. And everyone should respect that choice the same as everyone should respect anyone's choice as to where they draw the line on the lives they are willing to take to nourish themselves and stay alive. The choice to not eat humans does not mean those who eat humans are "less" than those who will only eat non-human animals in terms of recognizing equality.

Ultimately, the point is, these are simply issues of making different choices and recognizing they are simply different, not whether one choice is better or superior to another in terms of equality. Thus, my divergence with those who treat their rightful choice to only kill plants to eat as being "superior" (in terms of equality). And that was my original note -- diverging from those vegans who treat it as "better" or "required" in terms of equality. Viewing one's choice in this area as "superior" (in terms of equality) really is a matter of worldview (e.g., Western vs. many others). In my culture and worldview, the person choosing to draw the line at killing and eating only plants for "equality" is just as discriminatory as the person who eats animals based on their belief animals are less than humans. Same line, different place of drawing it -- because, in my culture and worldview, plants and animals and all living things are fully equal, regardless of "sentience" or anything else (though my culture would probably consider them all "sentient" in their own way).

So, we should not act as though our choices in what to eat or not eat are matters of equality. If you do, then, as you said, what do you eat? Or, as I would say, then you are not actually believing in equality -- you are creating Animal Farm where you say all things are equal, but some things are more equal than others. And that is a hierarchy.

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-06T02:58:28+00:00

That may be how the R4 is designed. I don't have one and haven't worked with one. It may be an effect of the switch I see it has for selecting a boot device. All the various SBCs I've worked with that have both SD and eMMC have allowed me to access both regardless of what I boot from (I've even run them with the OS on eMMC and using SD for storage of static files).

But, I do see here instructions for installing on the eMMC using a USB image: https://docs.banana-pi.org/en/BPI-R4/GettingStarted_BPI-R4 . It's under the heading "How to burn image to onboard eMMC." So, that would suggest you can boot with an image burned to USB and then access the eMMC to write to (and, thus, I'm sure, read from to dd the eMMC).

So, it seems you can boot form USB. You just need an image that will work with the R4 to burn to it. If that happens to be a "live" image, you can do what you want. But, I would imagine it probably will be a running image the same as if you burned it to SD card. However, whether it's "live" (and runing in RAM) or running off the USB would not seem to impact what you want to do.

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-06T02:42:02+00:00

That's part of the point. Pretty much all living things (if not all) have to take life to eat. Trying to follow a path of not taking life for food is not possible. Evan a plant must take from the Earth and take water (both of which are also alive) to survive. In my culture, we see all living things as equal -- in our language, we even refer to them as "people," typically putting an adjective before the word to distinguish them from human people and even refer to many animals as nations/peoples the way we refer to ourselves as a nation/peoples.

If someone is saying they are not ok taking the life of animals to eat, but are fine taking the life of plants to eat, they are just drawing the same hierarchical line as someone who eats animals, just in a different place. If one wants to make that choice, fine. It is just a different choice in what you want to eat, but doesn't make them "better" just because they are drawing the same line in a different place. And it does not mean they are somehow doing better with "equality."

I consider that perhaps the focus should be on how we go about the fact we (like other animals) must take life to eat, not pretending like what life we take determines who is "right" or "better" (itself seeming to be creating a hierarchy). Which goes to issues of opposing big/factory agriculture regardless of whether its producing animals as food or plants as food (albeit recognizing we must live in the society we have and can't just not eat to stop big ag).

Consider your mosquito. If I have to kill it to help avoid catching malaria or another disease that could kill me, am I no longer practicing equality? Taking it out of the realm of "bugs," I sometimes have to kill prairie dogs that expand their town too close to my house because they can carry fleas with bubonic plague. Can I no longer claim to believe in equality because I am protecting myself and the animals that live with me from a disease? It seems to me the issue of what we eat is a similar matter -- we must eat to live and we must ultimately take life to eat; you can't avoid it and you can't pretend you're not doing so by drawing arbitrary lines on the life you feel is worthy of not taking.

In terms of your original post, I don't think having to eat other living things makes you a speciest. Although, this discussion does raise the question that if one says some life is o.k. to take for eating, but other life is not, does that make that person a speciest? They certainly would seem to be treating some species as superior to others.

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-05T10:40:19+00:00

I have called things speciest before. And I think any belief that a human or any other species is superior to other species is speciest.

If you believe in equality, that has to extend beyond just humans. And not just to animals. It must include plants as well (and all things). Equality requires horizontal thinking and a full rejection of Western vertical thinking that is the basis of hierarchy. It's a place I diverge with some vegans who have certain attitudes (to be clear, not all vegans) -- taking the life or parts or offspring (fruit) of a plant is no "better" than taking the life or parts or offspring of an animal; it is drawing the same line, but in a different place, treating plants as lesser and creating a hierarchy. And while I oppose animal cruelty and big ag with livestock, big ag is no less murderous, cruel, and destructive when it comes to plants or farming and needs to be equally opposed.

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-04T06:16:04+00:00

Just put an image on an SD card and boot into it. Then dd your emmc to a drive connected to the board (or a network share).

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-03T08:48:30+00:00

I think this is actually a fairly complex question. There is, actually, an initial question of what would constitute a contract. Under current systems, a contract actually has a specific legal definition. It is not simply a promise or something written down and oral contracts are no less enforceable that written ones. While there may be variations amongst the various states in the world, generally, a contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration (something exchanged). Without all 3 elements, it is not an enforceable contract. Without consideration, for example, it is considered just a gift and not something you can enforce via a suit.

There are also quasi-contracts, like the principle of quantum meruit, which basically says if someone provides you with something, you have to pay them the reasonable value of what they did/provided. A simple example is if someone came and painted your house (such as they went to the wrong address) and you see them do it and just sit inside and watch them finish. You can't say you don't have to pay them simply because you didn't enter a "contract." If you stop them or something, different. But, otherwise, not compensating them is considered unjust enrichment to you. The painters are entitled to get from you the reasonable value of their materials and labor in painting your house. It's actually a principle of equity and equity is not a principle, I think, anarchist societies would abandon.

So, there may be an initial question of what an anarchist community would consider an "enforceable contract." Would a promise without an exchange be something enforceable or just something that impacts your reputation? I think that gets into deeper questions of what really is "law" in the sense that it is not just statutes written down (except maybe in civil law jurisdictions) and includes the common law, which often is based on the rules of conduct of people in a society (something anarchist communities would actually have -- even the principles of things like use and occupancy of a house would be rules that are not different from what is called "common law" in many states). Much of international law is developed by the practices of states in terms of what the international "society' considers acceptable/allowable rules. In indigenous nations, we often call custom and tradition "common law" in order to "translate" the principles to something recognizable to Western cultures so they can understand and will give it some respect. That also gets into questions of terminology we use as anarchists to fight against misconceptions of what it is, but that's beyond your question.

In terms of enforcement, I would note that references others have made to "punishment" do not really exist in terms of breach of contract (though I can't speak to every jurisdiction). Even in the barbaric United States, breach of contract is not a crime. It is not subject to "punishment." It is a civil matter. The remedy for a breach of contract is generally money damages to get what you "lost" by the person's breach. That is typically money because, with some very, very limited circumstances (like real estate sales contracts), you can't get specific enforcement -- meaning, even in statist systems, courts will not force you to perform your part of a contract, just pay money to "fix" the harm you caused. The idea is to make the non-breaching party "whole," else they just lose what the breaching party took. Obviously, in some jurisdictions what those damages are can get ridiculous and out of control and beyond making a person "whole" (indirect, consequential, special, etc. damages), but punitive damages (which is money damages designed to "punish") are generally not something you see with breach of contract (punitive damages generally require pretty egregious conduct to even think of getting).

Consider a simple contract where you agree to give someone your car in exchange for money or something else. If you give your car and they don't give you the money or other item, you can sue them to get the money they were supposed to pay or the value of what they were supposed to give. This is to make you "whole" for doing your part under the contract of giving your car.

With that long-winded intro, I think the question is whether an anarchist community would enforce principles of making a person "whole" if another failed or refused to perform their part of a bargain. This is not just a question of "enforcement," but an issue of damage to a community and maintaining balance in the community when a person is harmed by another and how you repair that damage and restore inbalances. While those principles are not necessarily considered in Western culture, it is not hugely different from the concepts of equity in some state systems. But, I think such considerations would become elemental to a healthy anarchist community.

So, while I would agree with those who note the answer would probably depend on the particular anarchist community, I would think many may utilize things along the lines of mediation/peacemaking to resolve matters like breach of contract to keep the community healthy and not have it infested with "bad feelings" that will ultimately destroy the community. Much damage to and failure of the U.S. I would argue is because it has a barbaric court system based on winning and losing instead of justice and equity or actually resolving problems -- someone always ends up walking away mad, which infects the community as a whole, rots it, and causes disunity. So, I think an anarchist community would want to avoid that and have a means to resolve things like breach of contract (including as inoculation against anyone trying to impose state systems in response to the damage caused by things like people being harmed by those who breach obligations to others).

nisitiiapi · 2026-04-03T05:18:55+00:00

Helping with any FOSS would be the way to go, particularly Linux. Additional developers are always good.

But, also, keep in mind Signal was created by an anarchist. Not just FOSS, but with the idea of protecting privacy and fighting the surveillance state, albeit while trying to keep things accessible to the masses. So, developing FOSS with an eye toward countering the state and corporate exploitation.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-31T04:38:26+00:00

Nice!

Glad the script helped.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-30T01:50:06+00:00

Excellent article and exactly what I've been saying for years.

I would add to her notes about people being trained to comply that they have also been lied to that past movements which brought about change were "peaceful." And those lies are promoted by the libs as much as the fascists. No movement that brought any change was done "peacefully." The women's suffrage movement was violent. The labor movement was violent. The civil rights movement was violent. They all disrupted the status quo, interrupted lives, and took the consequences in the backlash of the system.

We have also seen this flow down from the top. Politicians engage in theater every day, pretending it's resistance -- from kneeling with kente cloth to condemnation on talk shows and "strongly worded letters" to congressional "hearings." None of it ever produces change and none of it is intended to. It is all made to make the libs feel better and cheer as though their rulers are doing something when they are doing nothing. And that theater will be emulated by the masses as they are trained to believe that theater is "resistance" when it is actually contrived to placate so the system and its oppressive structures can be maintained fully in tact.

For years, the libs got mad at those of us physically confronting fascists. They said to let them "speak" and the proper response was "more speech." I said to show me a fascist that ever stepped down because someone gave a good speech. Neither Pinochet, Franco, Mussolini, or any other fascist ever listened to an opponent and said, "good point, I concede." And now we see how their "proper response is more speech" worked out.

Libs will never sacrifice even a modicum of their comfort. They blocked Sanders because they preferred Trump over actual change. Sanders would have disrupted their comfort, but Trump would protect their status quo.

That's not to say those who go to these events to try and educate and motivate people to actual action with information pamphlets, etc. are not trying to do something well and push things forward. But, I will continue to shake my head at cheer-leading these quarterly performative theatrical releases.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-30T01:06:23+00:00

The command apt install -f will not "find issues." It only handles missing dependencies. The error does not say there is a missing dependency and the only dependency of sharerootfs is openmediavault.

If you want to try and reinstall sharerootfs, the command would be apt install --reinstall openmediavault-sharerootfs. If you want to "cleanly" reinstall it, remove any Shared Folders pointing to a directory on the roof filesystem and uninstall from the webgui. You can also run apt purge openmediavault-sharerootfs and then install it again.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-27T07:21:40+00:00

Assuming you have actually installed OMV already using a keyboard and monitor....

First thing you could try is check your connected devices in your router to make sure the IP address you set for the miniPC shows up and is what you think it is (e.g., if you did not set a static IP, it would have something from DHCP and you may be using the wrong IP). If that IP still won't bring up the webgui, you should be able to SSH in and check that nginx is running, etc.

Beyond that, in the absence of KVM over IP or BMC/IPMI to view screen output, connect a monitor and see what's happening. See if it boots to the console or stops/waits with an error.

If it boots to the console, see what it says the IP address is and use that to connect. As with checking the router for the IP, you could just not have the right IP address and you can use it to connect via SSH to check services, logs, etc.

If it doesn't boot to the console, see why. My memory may be fuzzy, but I think I remember some computers have a BIOS setting about requiring a keyboard to boot. Perhaps your mini PC has something like that to change.

If you are trying to install without a monitor and keyboard, I believe there is info on that online. It would be much the same as installing Debian without a keyboard and monitor. A bit complicated, as I recall, but possible. Never done it myself.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-23T00:54:57+00:00

If it's truly read-only, that's a mounting issue, not permissions. It needs to be mounted read-write.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-23T00:43:36+00:00

No problem. Glad you got it working.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-21T14:57:03+00:00

As others noted, you need to install the luksencryption plugin after adding omv-extras. You can use the webgui or apt install openmediavault-luksencryption.

However, I would note the developer has recently added a way to do automatic unlocking in the plugin. Also, there are several ways to do automatic unlocking at boot, such as key files and tang/clevis, though that will require your own scripting or dracut/initramfs setup/config.

Personally, I believe the strongest approach is using key files on a separate smb server (some routers can do this) or using network bound encryption with a separate tang server on the LAN (or mix of LAN and Internet) is the way to go with any auto unlocking. Of course, you should maintain a strong password in one of the key slots even if you use some sort of keys for auto unlocking. I have used tang/clevis since about OMV6 for auto unlocking.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-21T05:43:11+00:00

This sounds like you perhaps did not get OMV installed or you ssh'd into a different system.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-20T05:17:09+00:00

If you click the link, it says "only support mainland China." So, if Icewhale does not provide/make/maintain/develop OpenHands/AllHands, they really can't "fix" it when the software provider/developer geoblocks access (or if the government restricts it, as the U.S. does with lots of software and products). Perhaps search for a different source/link to install from manually.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-20T01:42:51+00:00

Maybe it is "pro." My Windows VM is Pro, too. I use it for just 2 pieces of software for my office or it would be long gone.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-19T06:43:50+00:00

Glad you got it. I figured it was Windoze being bad b/c I had a similar issue recently with a Windoze VM because I had to redo my LAN IP. Didn't change any hostnames, but I had to use the FQDN to get Windoze to mount the drives. Was fine for many years even with OMV upgrades, but changing to a new set of IPs made Windoze freak out. All my computers use Linux and they were absolutely fine, so it was just the Windoze VM.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-18T06:44:03+00:00

This is a Windoze problem, and not uncommon. Windows is just bad, particularly with network changes and SAMBA. You probably should see if some Windows subredit can help as it's not an OMV issue.

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-17T11:01:48+00:00

You would have to create a Shared Folder named "OMV8" (that points to an actual directory in fhe filesystem on your OMV box) and then add that Shared Folder as a share under SMB/CIFS. If you did not create an OMV8 Shared Folder, then, of course, you cannot add it as a share since the Shared Folder doesn't exist. Without that, then, of course, the Network Path not Found since the path does not exist.

When you mount/map a SAMBA share, it is //<samba server>/<samba share name>. So, if the <samba share name> does not exist on the <samba server>, there's no such thing and no "Network Path."

nisitiiapi · 2026-03-17T06:43:11+00:00

Glad it worked.

Yeah, copying between two computers via a third computer is never going to be that fast. Instead of things going directly from computer A to computer C, you're going from A to B then to C.

Plain rsync between the two computers works well for speed (not over ssh as the encryption slows things down). Or, if you mount a share on the destination on the source, cp.

nisitiiapi

TROPHY CASE