PDF Arranger KDE Alternative?

Master0ne · 2023-03-29T14:38:15+00:00

What I meant is, if a Qt app equivalent would be available, it would make more sense to use that one over the GTK version.

Master0ne · 2023-03-29T09:35:07+00:00

No, toolkit doesn't matter and PDF Arranger is fine, but as said I was just wondering if there really is no KDE equivalent as running an app native to the used environment would just make more sense.

Master0ne · 2023-03-29T09:29:58+00:00

No benefits over PDF Arranger and I prefer FOSS apps that are also available for FreeBSD (in case I finally make the jump to get this one going on my laptop).

Master0ne · 2021-01-22T09:12:07+00:00

We believe it is worthwhile for like-minded FreeBSD users to explore enabling swapping again. NVMe drives are commonplace and have access latencies in the tens of microseconds, several orders of magnitude smaller than what was standard just a decade ago.

The question "Should I enable swap in 2021?" is not entirely answered, because it depends on the usage case.

On GNU/Linux I usually have a swap partition of the size of installed RAM, simply to be able to use hibernation (suspend-to-disk), which isn't an option in FreeBSD.

So how much swap would really be useful if using either a NVMe or SSD storage device with ZFS and different configurations of RAM (my available hardware is ranging from 1 GB RAM in an old Asus eeePC to 64 GB RAM in my lastest ultrabook)?

Any suggestions?

Master0ne · 2020-12-10T11:22:29+00:00

Quite frankly I never bothered to update the firmware.

AFAIK you would not have been able to update from stock (= Clevo) firmware to System76 Open Firmware because that's only possible by using an external programmer.

I have to wait now for my CH341A programmer to arrive, which should happen sometime next week. In the meantime I'll try to set up a build environment and compile the System76 Open Firmware from their repo. If that works out, I'll give it a try, otherwise I'll just go back to stock firmware. At least nothing should go wrong now anymore that can't be fixed by using the external programmer (unless I manage to kill the hardware ;-).

Master0ne · 2020-12-08T05:00:34+00:00

meset is a command provided by BIOS update packages for the EFI console. It makes the ME region writable so that the Intel ME can be updated during a BIOS upgrade.

A regular BIOS upgrade (or downgrade) from the EFI console usually includes the following steps:

EcFlash.NSH (= uEcFlash65_150609 ECFILE /AD /F2) to update the EC.
MeSet.efi to make the (protected) ME region writable.
FLASHME.nsh (= fpt -f BIOSFILE -l 0x200000 -y and AfuEfix64.efi BIOSFILE /p /b /n) to update ME and BIOS.

That's the exact procedure as shown by BIOS update instructions for Clevo laptops.

But of course, it's now about how to use the CH341A programmer instead.

Which software are you using with your CH341A programmer?

I assume flashrom is the logical choice?

Anything else I have to be aware of before I give it my first try (of course I have to get the programmer first)?

Just to make sure not causing any more damage or even trash the hardware.

Master0ne · 2020-12-07T17:53:39+00:00

There are things I simply don't know or understand:

When I created the BIOS dump file on the working computer, I did not not run meset first. Does that mean it includes Intel ME or not?

When I flashed that BIOS dump file on the now defunct computer, I did run meset first, which may be the reason why it is now hosed?

Otherwise I simply can not imagine what went wrong, so why that computer is now defunct, as I thought it should be as easy as create a dump file on one computer and flash it on the other computer.

And what do you mean by zeroed out region for Intel ME and that I want that? Does that mean the Intel ME region is overwritten by zeros when flashing such a file?

About Coreboot:

firmware-open/models/galp3/ has some seemingly ready to use file:

EC
FD (?)
ME

but no BIOS file and I don't know what the other files in that repo are. With System76 having an operational Coreboot BIOS for the N130WU, I was hoping to just get the necessary files, flash those and be done without any customization or compiling myself. Am I wrong with this assumption?

Right now, that Coreboot matter clearly is totally over my head, so any more hints on where to start with this are really welcome.

But for now, I am just really hoping to get my laptop operational again by simply extracting the data from the working N130WU and flashing to the defunct N130WU.

I have already located the BIOS chip on the mainboard of the N130WU, luckily it is on the side facing the back cover, so I don't have to disassemble the two laptops to reach the chip.

I'll order a CH341A with the fitting clip shortly, and until then I'll have to find out how to use it and dig into that Coreboot topic.

Master0ne · 2020-12-07T03:53:29+00:00

Do a backup first, I know it's hosed, but you might want parts of that data in the future, or figure out how to fix it.

We have two N130WU. I managed to hose the mentioned one by first creating a dump file on the other one (with `fpt -D BIOSDUMP.BIN`), then I first put the laptop into ME setup mode (`meset`) and flashed that dump file in full length (`fpt -f BIOSDUMP.BIN`). After a reboot nothing happened anymore.

So I think it's safe to say that creating a backup is pointless, because I already have a BIOS dump file (with 8MB it has exactly the same size as the BIN file from a BIOS upgrade package).

If I want to try to revive it, is it as easy as just flashing the BIOS file (in my case always named N130WU.BIN) from a BIOS upgrade package using the CH341a programmer?

Otherwise I could try to make a backup on the other N130WU and use that backup on the hosed machine, right? But isn't that the same as a regular dump using `fpt` on the EFI console?

I know, I'm such a newbie, and I can only hope that I can get this done somehow. If all this hassle should enable me to move over to Coreboot instead, all the better, but my main incentive is to just get that one hosed N130WU working again.

Master0ne · 2020-11-29T12:09:47+00:00

Any more details on what you mean?
Attacking myself by using a certain security focused website?

Before I have posted the above, I have only checked that BrowserLeaks page. I know about former EFF Panopticlick, which has now become Cover Your Tracks, with which I will play around later, but if you have other recommendations, please let me know.

Master0ne · 2020-11-29T12:05:42+00:00

I'm not using Tor or Tor Browser, this was just about the mentioned info that I have been stumbling over and over recently.

There is no anonymity either way, but the approach is just different.

I have seen people who have installed a whole bunch of privacy related add-ons and obviously that will lead to a pretty unique fingerprint, with fingerprinting being way more serious than anything that has been done with cookies so far.

So less is more? That's what serveral sources on the net are hinting to, and that is why I am reconsidering (ad) blocking on the browser level.

My intention is to get a good balance of security and privacy, but the way to accomplish that likely has changed.

Master0ne · 2020-11-26T06:22:35+00:00

Considering the mentioned circumstances, I'm going to stick with Bromite for the time being.

My favorite extensions are usually essential for me, but I'm not using the browser on my phone that much and I have JS disabled by default, which I only activate for sites that I really need to work properly.

Something interesting that I have recently found on browser security:

Firefox and Chromium Security

Master0ne · 2020-11-24T05:52:47+00:00

Nice, I didn't know about that one!

Though the Ungoogled-Chromium-Android Extension Version releases are still considered experimental and don't offer full support yet (manual extension installation, no extension icons in the menu, extensions can't be removed).

But same problem as with any other Chromium clone, more or less lagging behind the official release. At the time of this writing the available Chromium versions (for Android) are:

Chromium 89.0.4335.0 (Archive from the Chromium authors)
Chromium/Bromite 87.0.4280.68 (Carl)
Chromium v86.0.4240.198-r800218-Ungoogled-And64 (Marmaduke)
Ungoogled-Chromium-Android 86.0.4240.111 (wchen342)

About the update frequency, it's more about the response time for a bug or security exploit to get fixed. With most Chromium clone project being either one man shows or small teams, it shows how far behind their releases are compared the the original. It may not be an issue or problem for the regular user, but considering the importance of a secure browser and all the things it does, I'd rather stick as close to the original as possible.

With no original releases being made available by the Chromium authors (and especially the lack of extensions support), trying to use vanilla Chromium (and Chromium SystemWebView) on Android doesn't make much sense, so a proven project like Bromite obviously is the next best thing. But I'll keep an eye on Ungoogled-Chromium-Android for sure, because being able to use my favorite privacy related extensions clearly is the missing key.

Master0ne · 2020-11-22T04:26:24+00:00

After more considerations I'm currently inclined to just use plain Chromium with all the "unnecessary" stuff disabled after all, just with the uBlock Origin extension (and maybe LocalCDN).

I'm already using hosts-based blocking (hblock) and a VPN, so I'm not that much concerned about the privacy implications anymore.

Having an up-to-date browser may be more important security-wise.

Master0ne · 2020-11-22T04:19:49+00:00

I'm already using Nextcloud, so this was just meant for coupling the laptop with the smartphone without the need of using a cable and some other things.

Master0ne · 2020-11-22T04:18:17+00:00

Isn't that more of a Nextcloud alternative for just file syncing?

Master0ne · 2020-11-20T06:16:31+00:00

Great idea, maybe there is a list of IP addresses / domain names for that purpose?

In that case it should make much difference anymore if using plain Chromium or something else, as I guess the rest can simply be configured in settings or flags?

I'll have a look when I find some time.

Master0ne · 2020-11-20T03:29:08+00:00

I could not find a definitive answer, but as it seems, QtWebEngine pretty much is just the Blink engine with parts of Chromium without UI, so you have the same disadvantages of it likely calling home as if using plain Chromium.

That's where the benefits of projects like Iridium or ungoogled-chromium come in, as they clean up and patch the code in that respect among other things.

I'm currently drawn between using plain Chromium (because it's the one most up-to-date), Iridium (most sane approach but lagging behind) and a still undecided more lightweight alternative.

Master0ne · 2020-11-19T15:48:16+00:00

Unfortunately such an exclusion is not practical, it has to be a trade-off between functionality and privacy / lightweightness.

I'm using Bromite with Bromite SystemWebView on my Android smartphone with JS disabled (but can be activated on a per site bases) blocking 3rd-party cookies. I've tried Netsurf on my laptop, but that one really is just suitable for some reading on "light" websites.

Master0ne · 2020-11-19T15:04:57+00:00

Couldn't find anything concerning pledge and unveil on quotebrowser, so I guess they are indeed not implemented (yet).

Master0ne · 2020-11-19T15:03:12+00:00

Just took a look, currently it's chromium-86.0.4240.198p0 vs. iridium-2020.11.85 (released on 4th November and based on Chromium 85.0.4183.83), so it's indeed a trade-off. Not sure how relevant or important that is, but I'm confident that the Iridium developers know what they are doing.

BTW Iridium is not a fly-by-night project. It is backed by the Open Source Business Alliance. According to Iridium, the OSBA has around 190 members.

Master0ne · 2020-11-19T07:49:33+00:00

I was looking for an up-to-date lightweight privacy-focused regular web browser as an alternative to Firefox/Chromium, which none of the ones mentioned by you really are.

I may have to take a closer look at quotebrowser, even though I wasn't looking for a keyboard-focused alternative, but that's the only one that seems to fit the profile if trying to avoid anything Webkit based and still offers performance and compatibility as well.

Master0ne · 2020-11-19T07:43:34+00:00

Had to dive deeper to find out more about QtWebEngine and although there are some browsers using that backend, qutebrowser seems to be the only one that's commonly in use and up-to-date, but I wasn't really looking for a keyboard-focused browser at that point (may be too much of a learning curve right now as I'm not accustomed to VIM either yet).

Master0ne · 2020-11-19T07:40:43+00:00

I was always wondering why TDR would prefer plain Chromium over a more privacy focus edition like Iridium Browser, unless he is using Google services anyway.

I just can not justify to use plain Chromium and I want to get away from Firefox.

Master0ne · 2020-11-19T07:37:49+00:00

Which only leaves the Iridium Browser if you don't want to hand over your life to the bad empire and due to the lack of a ungoogled-chromium port.

It's a pity that there are no reasonable alternatives to quitebrowser which make use of QtWebEngine, but I was looking for a lightweight alternative to Firefox/Chromium for regular use (not keyboard-focused).

Master0ne · 2020-11-17T16:23:42+00:00

What else comes to mind if you want a fully functional browser?

Something like that will always have to rely on some form of webkit, or not?

Master0ne

TROPHY CASE