Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi?

[hank williams]

Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
(copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
over my local network.

What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
Windows?

I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably.
I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux?

What do you use to transfer large files from linux to
windows over your local LAN?

[Marek Novotny]

Well, it's not the fastest protocol but SFTP, part of the Linux SSH
suite should already be there and work just fine for the large once in a
while transfer. Samba is my first choice though. There is always good
old fashioned SneakerNet(r). :)

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[George Schroeder]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:12:50 -0000 (UTC), hank williams <ha...@aol.com> wrote:
: Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer

:
I have found that winscp is an easy way to transfer files between Windows
and Linux. Never done really large files, so I don't know how efficient
it is.

[Wolf K]

On 2015-12-22 14:12, hank williams wrote:
> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
> over my local network.
>
> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
> Windows?

Use a USB memory stick.

> I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably.
> I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux?
>
> What do you use to transfer large files from linux to
> windows over your local LAN?

I use a USB stick to both transfer files between machines, and to play
the videos. I don't have a Linux machine any more, but USB memory stick
was what I used then, too.

Have a good day,

--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

[Richard Kettlewell]

pscp and samba.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015, at 19:12:50h +0000,
Hank Williams asked:

> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
> Windows?

SAMBA/CIFS gets the job done.

> I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably.

So you need to try again after reading the documentation and/or
getting some help on the points you do not understand.

> I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux?

This will do the job but not really ideal for what you are
wanting to do.

If you have an NFS client on your Windoze boxes, you could just
use NFS which is much simpler to get working than SAMBA/CIFS.

If you want to be platform neutral and just want to watch the
video files (after all, why are you wanting to copy them over
to a Windoze box in the first place), then a DLNA server would
be the thing to install and then you can play your video files
wherever you have a DLNA media player eg on your Windoze boxes,
on your TV, on your other media devices.

The very easiest one to get up and running and the one that
just works is ReadyMedia (the DLNA media server previously
known as MiniDLNA)

<http://sourceforge.NET/projects/minidlna/>

But remember that uPnP/DLNA does not work across subnets
without the aid of multicast routers.

[mike]

I put a simple http file server on the windows machine.
Anything with a browser can transfer files to/from
the http server. No worries/issues with protocols
or passwords/credentials at all. It just works.
Also works across the web.
Trivial to configure.
Turn it off when not in use and security won't be an issue.
www.rejetto.com
HFS.

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-12-22, hank williams <ha...@aol.com> wrote:

> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
> over my local network.
>
> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
> Windows?
>
> I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably.
> I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux?

perhaps instead an ssh server and filezilla for the client.

> What do you use to transfer large files from linux to
> windows over your local LAN?

apache, it saves installing stuff on windows.

--
\_(ツ)_

[hank williams]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:07:01 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

> I use a USB stick to both transfer files between machines, and to play
> the videos. I don't have a Linux machine any more, but USB memory stick
> was what I used then, too

Thanks everyone for the ideas.

I'm not sure I understand all of the solutions, but there is enough to
google on, so I'll first just list them at this point & then try them
next, but most of the suggested installations failed to install on Linux.

1. Samba, by Marek Novotny, Richard Kettlewell, & J G Miller,
$ sudo apt-get install samba
2. SFTP/SSH, by Marek Novotny
$ sudo apt-get install openssh-server
3. WinsCP, by George Schroeder
$ sudo apt-get install winscp
E: Unable to locate package winscp
4. PsCP, by Richard Kettlewell
$ sudo apt-get install pscp
E: Unable to locate package pscp
5. CIFS/NFS, by J G Miller
$ sudo apt-get install cifs nfs
E: Unable to locate package cifs
E: Unable to locate package nfs
6. FTP/HTTP server, by Hank Williams
$ which ftp
/usr/bin/ftp
4. Sneakernet USB stick, by Wolf K

[hank williams]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:42:13 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

> apache, it saves installing stuff on windows.

$ sudo apt-get install apache
E: Package 'apache' has no installation candidate
$ apt-cache search apache
Lists too much stuff
$ apt-cache search apache | grep httpd
libapache2-mod-svn - Apache Subversion server modules for Apache httpd
libapache2-svn - Apache Subversion server modules for Apache httpd (dummy package)
$ sudo apt-cache search 'web server'
Again lists too much stuff to make sense out of the results

What's the command to install an Apache HTTP server on Linux?

[hank williams]

Since most suggested Samba, I'll try to get that running again:
https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts

But, I always hate Linux tutorials because they assume everything
is absolutely perfect, and when it's not (which *always* happens),
then you have to guess.

When "I" guess, everything fails. But I'll ask you what to guess
this time, and hope that this helps me get past the guesses in
the tutorial.

My first "guess" happens when the tutorial expects a fully
qualified domain name when I don't have a FQDN at all.

But the tutorial just *assumes* I put my Linux FQDN into the
Windows hosts file.

What I see as my Linux FQDN:
$ hostname -f
hank

$ cat /etc/hostname
hank

$ head /etc/hosts | grep hank
127.0.1.1 hank

What Windows apparently needs (example from the tutorial):
192.168.0.100 server1.example.com ubuntu

I'm not a *.com as I'm just a homeowner. I have an ISP but he
isn't a big company. So what do I use for my Linux FQDN in the
Windows hosts file?

Do I just use "hank" or hank.something?.com?

[William Unruh]

On 2015-12-22, hank williams <ha...@aol.com> wrote:

Probably quickest would be to copy to the usb stick and then read it off
in Windows.
Or set up linux as an ftp server, (eg vsftpd) and use Windows to get the
ftp file from the linux server.
I would use wired rather than wireless-- faster.

>

[William Unruh]

On 2015-12-22, hank williams <ha...@aol.com> wrote:

> Since most suggested Samba, I'll try to get that running again:
> https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts
>
> But, I always hate Linux tutorials because they assume everything
> is absolutely perfect, and when it's not (which *always* happens),
> then you have to guess.
>
> When "I" guess, everything fails. But I'll ask you what to guess
> this time, and hope that this helps me get past the guesses in
> the tutorial.
>
> My first "guess" happens when the tutorial expects a fully
> qualified domain name when I don't have a FQDN at all.
>
> But the tutorial just *assumes* I put my Linux FQDN into the
> Windows hosts file.
>
> What I see as my Linux FQDN:
> $ hostname -f
> hank
>
> $ cat /etc/hostname
> hank
>
> $ head /etc/hosts | grep hank
> 127.0.1.1 hank
>
> What Windows apparently needs (example from the tutorial):
> 192.168.0.100 server1.example.com ubuntu

You can use hank on Windows as well.
192.168.0.100 hank

>
> I'm not a *.com as I'm just a homeowner. I have an ISP but he
> isn't a big company. So what do I use for my Linux FQDN in the
> Windows hosts file?
>
> Do I just use "hank" or hank.something?.com?

The ip address is the important part. The name is just there as an easy
nemonic for you.

>
>

[Paul]

The world is divided into two nice neat groups :-)

Those who can deal with the security walls built around
our networking implementions.

And those who cannot deal with it.

Your Windows machine, already has SAMBA running on it,
as Windows file sharing. Most of the Linux clients will
already be able to talk to the Windows box immediately,
without installing packages.

The more modern the Windows box is, the more pesky
is the security. When I set older Windows boxes for
wide open permissions, it usually works. A more modern
Windows can be annoying you with the authentication
box when it isn't needed.

In terms of approaches, you can "push" or "pull" files.
On my network, the choice is made based on the
performance asymmetry. One of my machines only
does 20MB/sec over GbE, so I need to "push" from
that machine, to a machine that can do 112MB/sec
continuously. One direction can be five times
faster than the other direction, in terms of
who has the server, and who is the client.

Adding additional interfacing standards, is I suppose
like playing the lottery. But generally, on modern
tools, it's pretty hard to shake the concepts
of security - virtually everything will involve
SSH or use passwords, and involve messing around.

(Windows 8 has HomeGroup, which is fine for homogenous
environments, but useless for anything else, and I
don't use that here. The odds of two machines using
that at the same time, is slim.)

Only twenty years ago, did we have tools that implemented
"private" authentication. You could set up account
"joe" password "joe" and it would apply only to your
FTP server. Rather than relying on the accounts and
passwords used by the OS. Those were the good days,
when it was easy to do stuff.

Now, you will find OSes which deprecate the easy
ways, and only leave the hard ways.

*******

And while they claim to be making very fast
USB3 flash sticks, the benchmarks don't always
pan out.

http://www.storagereview.com/patriot_supersonic_rage_2_usb_flash_drive_review

You could always stick an SSD inside a USB3 enclosure
that has UASP support, and give that a try as
a substitute for a flash stick. Then transfer
the stuff via sneakernet.

*******

And if you're bored, you can try this. For rcp usage.

http://rshd.sourceforge.net/

Paul

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2015-12-22 22:29, hank williams wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the ideas.
>
> I'm not sure I understand all of the solutions, but there is enough to
> google on, so I'll first just list them at this point & then try them
> next, but most of the suggested installations failed to install on Linux.

sftp/ssh should already be installed on most distributions. Test:

ssh localhost

and you get the password prompt, you have it.

Winscp is one of the windows counterparts.


Samba, nfs, ftp, http... all need configuration and install, depending
on your distribution.


Write to a usb stick is the easiest to do, but slower that local cabled
network (1000Mb/s). Possibly same speed than wifi.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[hank williams]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:56:11 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> You can use hank on Windows as well.
> 192.168.0.100 hank

Thanks.

The tutorial just *assumes* you already know this answer!

> The ip address is the important part.

> The name is just there as an easy mnemonic for you.

That brings me to my *second* guess, which, again, the tutorial
just assumes you know the answer to.
https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts

Since I have a typical home system, which uses DHCP on the home
router, so whatever the IP address of the Linux laptop is today
will be *different* tomorrow.

While it's easy enough to find the IP address of the Linux
laptop today using ifconfig, do I have to edit the Windows
hosts file every single day to change it each time it changes
on the Linux laptop?
$ ifconfig
wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0a:CF:9A:22:43
inet addr:192.168.1.4 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0

The tutorial doesn't say.

Do I have to edit the Windows hosts file every single time the
Linux machine boots to a new DHCP local LAN IP address?

[hank williams]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:52:44 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> Or set up linux as an ftp server, (eg vsftpd) and use Windows to get the
> ftp file from the linux server.

Thanks for that suggestion.
I ran this, to install the server on Linux:
$ sudo apt-get install vsftpd
Preparing to unpack .../vsftpd_3.0.2-1ubuntu2.14.04.1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking vsftpd (3.0.2-1ubuntu2.14.04.1) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.6.7.1-1ubuntu1) ...
Processing triggers for ureadahead (0.100.0-16) ...
Setting up vsftpd (3.0.2-1ubuntu2.14.04.1) ...
vsftpd start/running, process 27240
Processing triggers for ureadahead (0.100.0-16) ...

I'm not sure what to do next though, so I'll look it up.

[hank williams]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:24:10 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> sftp/ssh should already be installed on most distributions. Test:
>
> ssh localhost
>
> and you get the password prompt, you have it.

I seem to have it.

$ ssh localhost
hank@localhost's password:
Welcome to Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS (GNU/Linux 3.13.0-48-generic x86_64)

* Documentation: https://help.ubuntu.com/

The programs included with the Ubuntu system are free software;
the exact distribution terms for each program are described in the
individual files in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright.

Ubuntu comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by
applicable law.

> Winscp is one of the windows counterparts.

Oh. I see. So that won't work then.

[George Schroeder]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:29:46 -0000 (UTC), hank williams <ha...@aol.com> wrote:

:
I should have given more info on winscp. It is a Windows program, so
apt-get will not find it. You can download it from winscp.net.
It uses ssh to transfer files between the Windows and Linux systems.

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015, at 21:35:16h +0000,
Hank Williams asked:

> What's the command to install an Apache HTTP server on Linux?

On Debian based systems, they decided to differentiate between
apache v1 releases and apache v2 releases. Even though apache v1
is no longer available, only apache v2, the apache package is
still named apache2. Similar to this, the DNS package is named bind9.

So apt-get install apache2

ii apache2 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server
ii apache2-bin 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server (binary files and modules)
ii apache2-data 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server (common files)
ii apache2-doc 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server (on-site documentation)
ii apache2-utils 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server (utility programs for web servers)

There are two significant light weight alternatives to apache2, namely
lighthttpd and nginx, with nginx supposedly having the edge, but personal
preferences (eg configuration syntax) will play a large part in whether
people argue for one of the other.

One downside of nginx is that if you want to add add-on functionality (eg scgi),
one has to re-compile the binary to include that add-on, no dynamic modules
(last time I checked anyways).

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015, at 22:45:21h +0000,

Hank Williams wrote:

> My first "guess" happens when the tutorial expects a fully
> qualified domain name when I don't have a FQDN at all.

So long as you ensure that it does not leak out into the Internet
(viz e-mail headers which do not get deleted or rewritten), you
can always use a fictitious domain name on your LAN.

> What Windows apparently needs (example from the tutorial):
> 192.168.0.100 server1.example.com ubuntu

Seeing as windows is going to be using the SAMBA server,
it should not care about the FQDN and just using the simple
LMHOSTS names for SAMBA/CIFS hosts and if you are not running
a local DNS, you can just put the hostname without the domain
name but with the IP address in the Windows C host file.

Of course whenever you have a server on your LAN, it makes
sense to ensure that it has a static IP address, which may be
more of an issue for you.

[William Unruh]

On 2015-12-22, Carlos E.R. <c...@invalid.es> wrote:
> On 2015-12-22 22:29, hank williams wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone for the ideas.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand all of the solutions, but there is enough to
>> google on, so I'll first just list them at this point & then try them
>> next, but most of the suggested installations failed to install on Linux.
>
> sftp/ssh should already be installed on most distributions. Test:
>
> ssh localhost
>
> and you get the password prompt, you have it.
>
> Winscp is one of the windows counterparts.

Or use putty.

>
>
> Samba, nfs, ftp, http... all need configuration and install, depending
> on your distribution.
>
>
> Write to a usb stick is the easiest to do, but slower that local cabled
> network (1000Mb/s). Possibly same speed than wifi.

Not if it is usb3.

>

[William Unruh]

On 2015-12-22, hank williams <ha...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:56:11 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> You can use hank on Windows as well.
>> 192.168.0.100 hank
>
> Thanks.
>
> The tutorial just *assumes* you already know this answer!
>
>> The ip address is the important part.
>> The name is just there as an easy mnemonic for you.
>
> That brings me to my *second* guess, which, again, the tutorial
> just assumes you know the answer to.
> https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts
>
> Since I have a typical home system, which uses DHCP on the home
> router, so whatever the IP address of the Linux laptop is today
> will be *different* tomorrow.

You can always tell you home router to use static IP for laptop.

>
> While it's easy enough to find the IP address of the Linux
> laptop today using ifconfig, do I have to edit the Windows
> hosts file every single day to change it each time it changes
> on the Linux laptop?
> $ ifconfig
> wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0a:CF:9A:22:43
> inet addr:192.168.1.4 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
>
> The tutorial doesn't say.
>
> Do I have to edit the Windows hosts file every single time the
> Linux machine boots to a new DHCP local LAN IP address?

Yes. Or you can use the ip address rather than the hostname
ssh 192.160.0.107
Or you can tell you router to always give the same address to your
laptop (or rather to any machine with its MAC address.)

>

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-12-22, hank williams <ha...@aol.com> wrote:

Apache as not much easier to configure than samba. possibly harder.
samba can usually be configured with only carful reading of the default
config file. I often find I need to search documentation to configure
apache.

--
\_(ツ)_

[mike]

On 12/22/2015 3:27 PM, hank williams wrote:

> Do I have to edit the Windows hosts file every single time the
> Linux machine boots to a new DHCP local LAN IP address?
>

Use address reservation in your router to assign the same
IP address every time to each machine's MAC address.
The benefits of static IP while maintaining DHCP flexibility.

[Clément]

William Unruh wrote:

>> Write to a usb stick is the easiest to do, but slower that local cabled
>> network (1000Mb/s). Possibly same speed than wifi.
>
> Not if it is usb3.

'cept that it has to be copied twice, and, if you don't unmount
gracefully, your entire hard disk drive corrupts itself (ask me
how I know).

[Carlos E.R.]

Why not? It is what you asked for, transfer files from/to Windows/Linux.
Just the tool.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2015-12-23 00:54, William Unruh wrote:

> On 2015-12-22, Carlos E.R. <> wrote:

>> Winscp is one of the windows counterparts.
>
> Or use putty.

But that is only the terminal, right? Not for copying files across.

There is also "mobaxterm". Has all things: terminal, two panel file
manager, and graphical terminal. ie, 'X', on Windows. Very nice and simple.

>> Write to a usb stick is the easiest to do, but slower that local cabled
>> network (1000Mb/s). Possibly same speed than wifi.
>
> Not if it is usb3.

Ah, true. I don't have any of those, so I forgot. But usb-flash media,
even on usb3, are slow write devices. You need a real hard disk:
rotating rust or SSD. Not a cheap stick :-)

[William Unruh]

On 2015-12-23, Carlos E.R. <c...@invalid.es> wrote:
> On 2015-12-23 00:54, William Unruh wrote:
>> On 2015-12-22, Carlos E.R. <> wrote:
>
>>> Winscp is one of the windows counterparts.
>>
>> Or use putty.
>
> But that is only the terminal, right? Not for copying files across.

psftp pscp are all parts of putty.

[wimpunk]

If you're using mdns you can just use hank.local to find the server.

[jota...@gmail.com]

Em terça-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2015 17:12:51 UTC-2, hank williams escreveu:
> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
> over my local network.
>
> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
> Windows?
>
> I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably.
> I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux?
>
> What do you use to transfer large files from linux to
> windows over your local LAN?

Hi

If your purpose is watch the movies, try to use "universal media server" on your linux box. It is free and you can download it from www.universalmediaserver.com

Best regards.

[Wildman]

Thanks for the link. I didn't know about that one.

There is also ReadyMedia previously know as miniDLNA. It is also
available in most of the Linux repos. Source code here...

http://sourceforge.net/projects/minidlna/

--
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[J.O. Aho]

On 12/22/2015 08:12 PM, hank williams wrote:
> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
> over my local network.
>
> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
> Windows?

scp, nfs, if you have a newer version of the spyware, then it has
support for ssh and nfs, how good they are, is another question.


--

//Aho

[NY]

"J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:dehkri...@mid.individual.net...

> On 12/22/2015 08:12 PM, hank williams wrote:
>> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
>> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
>> over my local network.

In my experience, forget copying via wifi and use Ethernet instead. Even
with a supposedly 300 Mbps wireless router and a good signal strength (eg
laptop right next to router), I get very much lower transfers speeds for
laptop to/from desktop over wifi than over Ethernet. In both cases, the
desktop is connected to the router by Ethernet, so the only difference is
laptop to router by wifi or by Ethernet.

Wifi is notoriously poor when it's carrying two different signals (eg laptop
to router and router to desktop) which is why I've eliminated that by having
the desktop connected by Ethernet.

For normal usage, you'd not notice the difference, but when you do a large
transfer (eg copying a 1 GB file from local c:\folder\filename to remote
\\server\sharename\filename) the difference is very apparent.

For example (copying using Windows Explorer):

1. Copy 2.1 GB file from c: on laptop to \\desktop\sharename over wifi which
is reporting 72 Mbps and is typically using about 40-60% of the bandwidth -
takes 10m 38s (transfer speed reported at about 3.4 MB/sec)

2. Copy same file to same sharename over Ethernet (ie disable laptop's wifi
and plug in Ethernet cable) - flat-out 99% usage of 100 Mbps - takes 3m 10s
(transfer speed is about 11 MB/sec)


This is for Windows 7 to Windows 7. I'm not sure whether Linux shows as much
difference between transfer rates for wireless and Ethernet.

[Marek Novotny]

On 2015-12-30, NY <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:dehkri...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 12/22/2015 08:12 PM, hank williams wrote:
>>> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
>>> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
>>> over my local network.
>
> In my experience, forget copying via wifi and use Ethernet instead. Even
> with a supposedly 300 Mbps wireless router and a good signal strength (eg
> laptop right next to router), I get very much lower transfers speeds for
> laptop to/from desktop over wifi than over Ethernet. In both cases, the
> desktop is connected to the router by Ethernet, so the only difference is
> laptop to router by wifi or by Ethernet.

As someone who copies 25 to 50 GB files many times daily I can agree
with this. Even if you have to use a USB to Ethernet dongle, it is worth
doing. WiFi is good for the internet, but Gigabit Ethernet is much
faster. And now we can see 10G on the horizon. I'm already considering
it right now.

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[NY]

"Marek Novotny" <marek....@marspolar.com> wrote in message
news:cKudnZAzKeZlgRnL...@giganews.com...

Ethernet also has the advantage that it is far more reliable. I find that I
occasionally have to disconnect and reconnect the wireless connection on
wireless-connected devices when they lose the ability to talk (on a variety
of Windows, Android and Apple iPad devices, and to a variety of Netgear,
Belkin and TPLink routers); sometimes it's even necessary to reboot a
computer or a router to get normal service back. Ethernet doesn't suffer
from that.

I have an always-on PC that I use (amongst other things) for recording TV
and which I sometimes access remotely via TeamViewer when I'm away from home
(eg to schedule new programmes to be recorded) and you can't
disconnect/reconnect wireless on this PC if your only way of accessing the
PC is via that wireless connection! That's why I made sure the router is
physically close to that PC, so I can use Ethernet. If I want to transfer
large (eg multi GB) files/folders to/from my wireless laptop, I always plug
in an Ethernet lead to the laptop to do that.

As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes, but it's slower for
bulk transfers of data and it's not quite 100% reliable.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted:

> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes

Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi
and not ethernet.

[NY]

"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:n638sr$qqa$1...@dont-email.me...

Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged battery
or else are running off UPS-backed mains.

And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-)

[crankypuss]

I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my
electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator
instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about the
best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides an
ethernet cable, *AND* I'm using my old Acer 32-bit machine that actually
*HAS* an ethernet port to attach the cable to. Newer laptops, as you
might have noticed, seem to have fewer ports overall, so they can beat
their chests about how slim their device is. <snort>

There are other rules I tend to follow, slavishly. Like "never update
your system partition unless you've just backed it up and can restore it
onto a new drive and boot it". And "never update your system's firmware
until you've tried everything else".

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
[Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]

[J.O. Aho]

On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote:
> NY wrote:
>
>> "J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
>> news:n638sr$qqa$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted:
>>>
>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes
>>>
>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi
>>> and not ethernet.
>>
>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged
>> battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains.
>>
>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-)
>
> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my
> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator
> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about the
> best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides an
> ethernet cable,

Thought of ethernet over powerline?

*AND* I'm using my old Acer 32-bit machine that actually
> *HAS* an ethernet port to attach the cable to. Newer laptops, as you
> might have noticed, seem to have fewer ports overall, so they can beat
> their chests about how slim their device is. <snort>

The wast majority of thin laptops do still have ethernet, tables is a
different question even if they may be thicker than the laptop.

--

//Aho

[crankypuss]

J.O. Aho wrote:

> On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote:
>> NY wrote:
>>
>>> "J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
>>> news:n638sr$qqa$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted:
>>>>
>>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes
>>>>
>>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi
>>>> and not ethernet.
>>>
>>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged
>>> battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains.
>>>
>>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-)
>>
>> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my
>> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator
>> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about
>> the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides
>> an ethernet cable,
>
> Thought of ethernet over powerline?

Powerline? We're totally offgrid, there is not a single cable or pipe
crossing our property-line.

> *AND* I'm using my old Acer 32-bit machine that actually
>> *HAS* an ethernet port to attach the cable to. Newer laptops, as you
>> might have noticed, seem to have fewer ports overall, so they can
>> beat their chests about how slim their device is. <snort>
>
> The wast majority of thin laptops do still have ethernet, tables is a
> different question even if they may be thicker than the laptop.

I guess I'm just lucky, my Dell XPS13 has none, and my ASUS T105 has
none.

[Vico T]

On 23-Dec-15 2:12 AM, hank williams wrote:
> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
> over my local network.
>

> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
> Windows?
>

> I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably.
> I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux?
>
> What do you use to transfer large files from linux to
> windows over your local LAN?
>

https://nitroshare.net/

[William Unruh]

Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell
XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you could plug
and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of the laptop was less
than the height of an ethernet port.)
>

[crankypuss]

What is an "ethernet 3 port"? Maybe my XPS13 has one and I'm too stupid
to recognize it. It does have 2 USB3 ports, into which I can plug a
cable to my phone to tether it. But I know it has some port to plug in
a high-res TV, so I guess that's good enough for the modern user, seems
pretty obvious where the trends are headed when you have to press Ctl +
F3 to get a simple F3 instead of some media control function.

If it does have an "ethernet 3 port" I'd like to know how to recognize
it. It definitely has no holes big enough to accept a traditional
ethernet cable, let alone of the right size and connection
configuration. For all I know an "ethernet 3 port" needs only some
simple adapter to hook up an ethernet cable.

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 02:41:13 -0700, crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote:
>>> NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> "J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
>>>> news:n638sr$qqa$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes
>>>>>
>>>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi
>>>>> and not ethernet.
>>>>
>>>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a fully-charged
>>>> battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains.
>>>>
>>>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-)
>>>
>>> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my
>>> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator
>>> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about
>>> the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that provides
>>> an ethernet cable,
>>
>> Thought of ethernet over powerline?
>
>Powerline? We're totally offgrid, there is not a single cable or pipe
>crossing our property-line.

The property line is irrelevant. All that matters is that you have some kind
of wire connecting two or more rooms in the house, whether it be electrical,
phone, or coax. Adapters exist for any of those.

I used powerline networking for years, first with a pair of *200 units and
later with a pair of *500 units. Both generally sucked. I'm currently using
coax (the adapters are Actiontec EBC6200 MOCA 2.0) and I consistently get
900+ megabits per second on file transfers. The best I ever saw with
powerline was about 120 Mbps, but 20-30 Mbps was much more typical.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> William Unruh wrote:
>
>> Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell
>> XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you could
>> plug and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of the laptop
>> was less than the height of an ethernet port.)
>
> What is an "ethernet 3 port"?

William meant to write "USB 3", not "ethernet 3".

> Maybe my XPS13 has one and I'm too stupid
> to recognize it. It does have 2 USB3 ports, into which I can plug a
> cable to my phone to tether it. But I know it has some port to plug in
> a high-res TV, so I guess that's good enough for the modern user, seems
> pretty obvious where the trends are headed when you have to press Ctl +
> F3 to get a simple F3 instead of some media control function.

I think usually there's some way to switch the default keycode for
those kinds of keyboards.

Microsoft's "Sculpt" ergonominc keyboard as a little switch you can slide
to have the Fn keys be Fn keys or idiot buttons, at your preference.

> If it does have an "ethernet 3 port" I'd like to know how to recognize
> it. It definitely has no holes big enough to accept a traditional
> ethernet cable, let alone of the right size and connection
> configuration.

As an aside, this ASUS I'm using has a wired ethernet port that is
as thin as a USB port, but accomodates a standard RJ45 connector
by having a hinged bottom lip.

--
Just to have it is enough.

[crankypuss]

Char Jackson wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 02:41:13 -0700, crankypuss
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>J.O. Aho wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/31/2015 07:48 PM, crankypuss wrote:
>>>> NY wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
>>>>> news:n638sr$qqa$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi
>>>>>> and not ethernet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite. And ideally, only update firmware if you have a
>>>>> fully-charged battery or else are running off UPS-backed mains.
>>>>>
>>>>> And we all follow that rule slavishly, don't we, children? :-)
>>>>
>>>> I happen to follow it because there's really no choice; all of my
>>>> electricity is battery-backed, even when I'm running off generator
>>>> instead of solar. The wifi imprecation, not so much; wifi is about
>>>> the best connection I get unless I'm staying in a hotel that
>>>> provides an ethernet cable,
>>>
>>> Thought of ethernet over powerline?
>>
>>Powerline? We're totally offgrid, there is not a single cable or pipe
>>crossing our property-line.
>
> The property line is irrelevant.

That's what the critters think.

> All that matters is that you have
> some kind of wire connecting two or more rooms in the house, whether
> it be electrical, phone, or coax.

No, I don't think that matters at all. Consider the source of the
signal, it's some cell tower miles away. What's most convenient is just
to plug my BlackBerry into the wall and tell it to be a wifi hotspot.

> Adapters exist for any of those.
>
> I used powerline networking for years, first with a pair of *200 units
> and later with a pair of *500 units.

Landlord?

> Both generally sucked.

And so you're recommending it, nice.

> I'm
> currently using coax (the adapters are Actiontec EBC6200 MOCA 2.0) and
> I consistently get 900+ megabits per second on file transfers. The
> best I ever saw with powerline was about 120 Mbps, but 20-30 Mbps was
> much more typical.

Fast is nice, on metered broadband, not so much.

[crankypuss]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> William Unruh wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell
>>> XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you could
>>> plug and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of the laptop
>>> was less than the height of an ethernet port.)
>>
>> What is an "ethernet 3 port"?
>
> William meant to write "USB 3", not "ethernet 3".

Hey, us old guys do that from time to time (ie, constantly), just wait
until it's *your* turn to start running into address collisions. <g>

But it's interesting to consider "ethernet to USB3 adapter", seems like
something I might be able to use on occasion, this is what you're
talking about right?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833166088

I need to snag a couple of better USB3 hubs, the ones I have are kind of
a PITA.

What's the deal with the computer hardware industry anyway, they must be
so starving for profits that they never think of things like fat USB
sticks preventing each other from fitting into adjacent ports.

>> Maybe my XPS13 has one and I'm too stupid
>> to recognize it. It does have 2 USB3 ports, into which I can plug a
>> cable to my phone to tether it. But I know it has some port to plug
>> in a high-res TV, so I guess that's good enough for the modern user,
>> seems pretty obvious where the trends are headed when you have to
>> press Ctl + F3 to get a simple F3 instead of some media control
>> function.
>
> I think usually there's some way to switch the default keycode for
> those kinds of keyboards.

If not the hardware, doubtless the software. Keyboards are a PITA at
the best of times, it takes 3 fingers on left hand plus 2 fingers on
right hand to select-to-end, some keyboards have a one-finger PgUp/PgDn
and others require Ctl, etc etc.

> Microsoft's "Sculpt" ergonominc keyboard as a little switch you can
> slide to have the Fn keys be Fn keys or idiot buttons, at your
> preference.

I have a nice Logitech bluetooth keyboard, but haven't yet set up the
bluetooth drivers on the new systems (the Acer is old enough that it has
no bluetooth hardware).

>> If it does have an "ethernet 3 port" I'd like to know how to
>> recognize
>> it. It definitely has no holes big enough to accept a traditional
>> ethernet cable, let alone of the right size and connection
>> configuration.
>
> As an aside, this ASUS I'm using has a wired ethernet port that is
> as thin as a USB port, but accomodates a standard RJ45 connector
> by having a hinged bottom lip.

What model? Hard to visualize from "hinged bottom lip".

If I was better at installing linux on linux-unfriendly laptops, I'd
probably have a NextBook 10" (nicely made imo), but when BIOS does not
support booting from USB it's kinda tough. On Android systems though,
there's a development mode which I think is defined into Android, so you
can transfer files from your PC. If you have the time and aren't
concerned about bricking it.

Wife thinks I have too many laptops already, she's probably right LOL,
now I'm thinking that I've seen clues that linux will run on a Mac so
who knows what's next. <g>

[Char Jackson]

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 01:28:45 -0700, crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>What's the deal with the computer hardware industry anyway, they must be
>so starving for profits that they never think of things like fat USB
>sticks preventing each other from fitting into adjacent ports.

Out of the 3 dozen or so USB sticks I have around here, only a couple are
too wide to fit side by side. If I need to use those two together, I stick
one on a 6-inch extension.

>If not the hardware, doubtless the software. Keyboards are a PITA at
>the best of times, it takes 3 fingers on left hand plus 2 fingers on
>right hand to select-to-end, some keyboards have a one-finger PgUp/PgDn
>and others require Ctl, etc etc.

Select-to-end is Ctrl-Shift-End, 3 keys. How are you needing 5 keys?

[Char Jackson]

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 00:59:02 -0700, crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

I thought we were talking about distributing Internet access throughout a
home. In that case, what crosses the property line is certainly irrelevant.
It's unlikely that you get Internet access via 'critters'.

>> All that matters is that you have
>> some kind of wire connecting two or more rooms in the house, whether
>> it be electrical, phone, or coax.
>
>No, I don't think that matters at all.

Of course it does. You can distribute your Internet connection via WiFi, but
it won't likely be as fast or as reliable as non-wireless solutions.

>Consider the source of the
>signal, it's some cell tower miles away. What's most convenient is just
>to plug my BlackBerry into the wall and tell it to be a wifi hotspot.

Then by all means do that. That certainly wouldn't be acceptable for me, but
your needs and expectations are obviously different from mine.

>> Adapters exist for any of those.
>>
>> I used powerline networking for years, first with a pair of *200 units
>> and later with a pair of *500 units.
>
>Landlord?

Huh? Powerline adapters, HPNA phone adapters, and MOCA coax adapters all use
the existing wiring, assuming their respective wiring exists in the first
place. No changes to that wiring are required.

Why would you need to be a landlord to use any of them?

>> Both generally sucked.
>
>And so you're recommending it, nice.

I didn't recommend powerline networking. I said that I used it extensively
and I thought it sucked. I'm currently using MOCA (media over coax) and it
doesn't suck, so that's what I'd recommend if I were to recommend something.

>> I'm
>> currently using coax (the adapters are Actiontec EBC6200 MOCA 2.0) and
>> I consistently get 900+ megabits per second on file transfers. The
>> best I ever saw with powerline was about 120 Mbps, but 20-30 Mbps was
>> much more typical.
>
>Fast is nice, on metered broadband, not so much.

Fast isn't the only consideration. It's also nice to have reliable Internet
access wherever in the house that you need it, simultaneously and
seamlessly. If you can do that by carrying your Blackberry around, then
that's great.

[crankypuss]

Char Jackson wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 01:28:45 -0700, crankypuss
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>What's the deal with the computer hardware industry anyway, they must
>>be so starving for profits that they never think of things like fat
>>USB sticks preventing each other from fitting into adjacent ports.
>
> Out of the 3 dozen or so USB sticks I have around here, only a couple
> are too wide to fit side by side. If I need to use those two together,
> I stick one on a 6-inch extension.

Ever take a good look at an aircard? Sure, you can always hook another
hub to each hub port, sellers love that.

>>If not the hardware, doubtless the software. Keyboards are a PITA at
>>the best of times, it takes 3 fingers on left hand plus 2 fingers on
>>right hand to select-to-end, some keyboards have a one-finger
>>PgUp/PgDn and others require Ctl, etc etc.
>
> Select-to-end is Ctrl-Shift-End, 3 keys. How are you needing 5 keys?

Lemme see here. Gosh it's only 4 keys, Shift+Ctrl+Fn+End on this XPS13,
silly me to be disappointed that it takes those extra keystrokes and
ties my fingers in a knot! Also seems silly of them to have blank spots
above Home and End keys instead of putting something useful there.

Perfectionism is tough, best countered with apathy. <g>

[Chris Ahlstrom]

crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> William Unruh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell
>>>> XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you could
>>>> plug and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of the laptop
>>>> was less than the height of an ethernet port.)
>>>
>>> What is an "ethernet 3 port"?
>>
>> William meant to write "USB 3", not "ethernet 3".
>
> Hey, us old guys do that from time to time (ie, constantly), just wait
> until it's *your* turn to start running into address collisions. <g>

I'm not as young as you might think.

> But it's interesting to consider "ethernet to USB3 adapter", seems like
> something I might be able to use on occasion, this is what you're
> talking about right?
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833166088
>
> I need to snag a couple of better USB3 hubs, the ones I have are kind of
> a PITA.

I have this one, it is decent:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008ZGKWQI

> What's the deal with the computer hardware industry anyway, they must be
> so starving for profits that they never think of things like fat USB
> sticks preventing each other from fitting into adjacent ports.

You can now get up to 128Gb in a tiny little dongle about the depth and
width of a small thumbnail.

>> I think usually there's some way to switch the default keycode for
>> those kinds of keyboards.
>
> If not the hardware, doubtless the software. Keyboards are a PITA at
> the best of times, it takes 3 fingers on left hand plus 2 fingers on
> right hand to select-to-end, some keyboards have a one-finger PgUp/PgDn
> and others require Ctl, etc etc.

Yeah, they're all different. So I use the window manager and xmodmap
to provide a consistent experience for me no matter what.
Ironically, the fucking "Windows monopoly" key is a key part of my keystroke
paradigm unification.

>> Microsoft's "Sculpt" ergonominc keyboard as a little switch you can
>> slide to have the Fn keys be Fn keys or idiot buttons, at your
>> preference.
>
> I have a nice Logitech bluetooth keyboard, but haven't yet set up the
> bluetooth drivers on the new systems (the Acer is old enough that it has
> no bluetooth hardware).
>

>> As an aside, this ASUS I'm using has a wired ethernet port that is
>> as thin as a USB port, but accomodates a standard RJ45 connector
>> by having a hinged bottom lip.
>
> What model? Hard to visualize from "hinged bottom lip".

ASUS n551jq-ds71. Can't find a good image of the port, however.

> If I was better at installing linux on linux-unfriendly laptops, I'd
> probably have a NextBook 10" (nicely made imo), but when BIOS does not
> support booting from USB it's kinda tough. On Android systems though,
> there's a development mode which I think is defined into Android, so you
> can transfer files from your PC. If you have the time and aren't
> concerned about bricking it.

That won't brick squat. However, my Galaxy S5's USB 3.0 mode is
"Window only". Dafuq! So I have to use the crappy MTP or PTP mode
to transfer files.

> Wife thinks I have too many laptops already, she's probably right LOL,
> now I'm thinking that I've seen clues that linux will run on a Mac so
> who knows what's next. <g>

As long as you're having fun and not catting around with young chicks!

--
You seek to shield those you love and you like the role of the provider.

[J.O. Aho]

On 01/02/2016 11:25 AM, crankypuss wrote:
> Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 01:28:45 -0700, crankypuss
>> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> What's the deal with the computer hardware industry anyway, they must
>>> be so starving for profits that they never think of things like fat
>>> USB sticks preventing each other from fitting into adjacent ports.
>>
>> Out of the 3 dozen or so USB sticks I have around here, only a couple
>> are too wide to fit side by side. If I need to use those two together,
>> I stick one on a 6-inch extension.
>
> Ever take a good look at an aircard? Sure, you can always hook another
> hub to each hub port, sellers love that.
>
>>> If not the hardware, doubtless the software. Keyboards are a PITA at
>>> the best of times, it takes 3 fingers on left hand plus 2 fingers on
>>> right hand to select-to-end, some keyboards have a one-finger
>>> PgUp/PgDn and others require Ctl, etc etc.
>>
>> Select-to-end is Ctrl-Shift-End, 3 keys. How are you needing 5 keys?
>
> Lemme see here. Gosh it's only 4 keys, Shift+Ctrl+Fn+End on this XPS13,
> silly me to be disappointed that it takes those extra keystrokes and
> ties my fingers in a knot! Also seems silly of them to have blank spots
> above Home and End keys instead of putting something useful there.

Keybinding? You could have one button to press and do the same thing.

--

//Aho

[crankypuss]

Note that I've removed the Windows newsgroup from the post-to list.

Yes, I know about keybinding. I'm pretty stupid actually, but I'm
single-minded and fairly thorough in addition to being simple-minded.

Not much point in tailoring something that might mysteriously stop
working next week. And until I can back up every system I own and can
restore a linux install to any system I own, or some lowest common
denominator, it isn't something I can really count on. One thing at a
time is about all I can deal with, even if I do multiplex dozens of
things every day.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>> Keybinding? You could have one button to press and do the same thing.
>
> Note that I've removed the Windows newsgroup from the post-to list.
>
> Yes, I know about keybinding. I'm pretty stupid actually, but I'm
> single-minded and fairly thorough in addition to being simple-minded.
>
> Not much point in tailoring something that might mysteriously stop
> working next week.

<rolls eyes>

--
You like to form new friendships and make new acquaintances.

[crankypuss]

Note the Windows newsgroup has been remove from the post-to list.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> William Unruh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I do not know if it is the majority. I had one laptop (Dell
>>>>> XPS13-1915) which had none. Just an ethernet 3 port which you
>>>>> could plug and ethernet to USB3 adapter into. (the thickness of
>>>>> the laptop was less than the height of an ethernet port.)
>>>>
>>>> What is an "ethernet 3 port"?
>>>
>>> William meant to write "USB 3", not "ethernet 3".
>>
>> Hey, us old guys do that from time to time (ie, constantly), just
>> wait until it's *your* turn to start running into address collisions.
>> <g>
>
> I'm not as young as you might think.

[1] You're as young as you are, even if you happen to be in your mid-
late 50's (as you seem to be), or your 90's, or your 20's for that
matter. The first-level stuff is the last to go, macros and suchlike
break first because their dependencies shift as the kernel ages like
fine wine, and more and more intermediate libraries are added by people
who rely more and more on magics-not-understood; I think a lot of that
cruft was never worth much to begin with since it has to be inculcated
by threat and force early in life when we were weakest.

>> But it's interesting to consider "ethernet to USB3 adapter", seems
>> like something I might be able to use on occasion, this is what
>> you're talking about right?
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833166088
>>
>> I need to snag a couple of better USB3 hubs, the ones I have are kind
>> of a PITA.
>
> I have this one, it is decent:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008ZGKWQI

The ones I have are decent, mostly. Not that big a deal, between wifi
and bluetooth, I'll be able to get by nicely on the 2 USB3 ports the
XPS13 has or the single USB3 port the ASUS T100 has. I do find it
offensive that it is so easy to make the choice of bluetooth over USB
for the masses, but I guess the masses don't know better and we're
supposed to work around. That's messed up.

>> What's the deal with the computer hardware industry anyway, they must
>> be so starving for profits that they never think of things like fat
>> USB sticks preventing each other from fitting into adjacent ports.
>
> You can now get up to 128Gb in a tiny little dongle about the depth
> and width of a small thumbnail.

I like a general solution, these work on USB3 or USB2, and from 32G to
128G cards, that I've tested:

http://www.amazon.com/IOGEAR-SuperSpeed-Reader-Writer-GFR304SD/dp/B006DEBNOY

Kind of nice to pull that out of your pocket and boot it up and install
your favorite linux on most any computer in half an hour or so. You
could keep a multi-boot linux backup in your phone and still have room
to spare. Maybe even boot your phone from it, who knows.

>>> I think usually there's some way to switch the default keycode for
>>> those kinds of keyboards.
>>
>> If not the hardware, doubtless the software. Keyboards are a PITA at
>> the best of times, it takes 3 fingers on left hand plus 2 fingers on
>> right hand to select-to-end, some keyboards have a one-finger
>> PgUp/PgDn and others require Ctl, etc etc.
>
> Yeah, they're all different. So I use the window manager and xmodmap
> to provide a consistent experience for me no matter what.

I'll be going that route once I have the backup situation better in
hand. At the moment I'm avoiding the drudge of rewriting some code that
currently uses fdisk so that it uses parted, for various reasons not
properly mentionable, and some technical ones too; as soon as this
newsgroup stuff gets to be more drudge, I'll go write code. <g>

> Ironically, the fucking "Windows monopoly" key is a key part of my
> keystroke paradigm unification.

I'd be interested in hearing more about your "keystroke paradigm
unification". How people organize things tells a lot about them. Folks
tend to make it easier to go from where they are, to where they want to
be. I try to minimize shifts between keyboard and mouse, but I just
can't get my thumbs around a trackpad. BlackBerry has a trackpad
smaller than your thumb, but I think the trick is more proximity than
sensitivity. Anyway, what's yours look like?

>>> Microsoft's "Sculpt" ergonominc keyboard as a little switch you can
>>> slide to have the Fn keys be Fn keys or idiot buttons, at your
>>> preference.
>>
>> I have a nice Logitech bluetooth keyboard, but haven't yet set up the
>> bluetooth drivers on the new systems (the Acer is old enough that it
>> has no bluetooth hardware).
>>
>>> As an aside, this ASUS I'm using has a wired ethernet port that is
>>> as thin as a USB port, but accomodates a standard RJ45 connector
>>> by having a hinged bottom lip.
>>
>> What model? Hard to visualize from "hinged bottom lip".
>
> ASUS n551jq-ds71. Can't find a good image of the port, however.

If you can't find one, I wouldn't be able to either, I seem to have
powerful google-[anti]fu.

>> If I was better at installing linux on linux-unfriendly laptops, I'd
>> probably have a NextBook 10" (nicely made imo), but when BIOS does
>> not
>> support booting from USB it's kinda tough. On Android systems
>> though, there's a development mode which I think is defined into
>> Android, so you
>> can transfer files from your PC. If you have the time and aren't
>> concerned about bricking it.
>
> That won't brick squat.

Depends on what you do, it's easier to brick a tablet or phone than a
for-real laptop, all you have to do is hose up the MBR so it can't boot
from anywhere, and if I'm not mistaken you can do that from your PC
connected in android development mode. With a tablet that leaves you
"no hands" to work with; maybe you can pry the thing open and fiddle the
magic bits, but I'm doing well to remember how the hood on my truck
opens.

> However, my Galaxy S5's USB 3.0 mode is
> "Window only". Dafuq! So I have to use the crappy MTP or PTP mode
> to transfer files.

Sounds like you might need this:

https://download.cyanogenmod.org/?device=klte

I rooted a DROID that I had a while back and installed an earlier
version of cyanogenmod, and I thought it was better than the stock
android OS. No longer have that phone, don't remember many details.

>> Wife thinks I have too many laptops already, she's probably right
>> LOL, now I'm thinking that I've seen clues that linux will run on a
>> Mac so who knows what's next. <g>
>
> As long as you're having fun and not catting around with young chicks!

This does not compute. [1]

[J G Miller]

On Friday, January 1st, 2016, at 17:57:02h -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

> I used powerline networking for years

Did you ever read this web page?

<http://www.arrl.ORG/broadband-over-powerline-bpl>

Or this one?

<http://www.rsgb.org.UK/plt/>

[Char Jackson]

No, neither of them.

[Kolmasaika]

If you have lots of very big video files use Bittorrent in LAN only
mode. It's an extremely efficient and easy way to sync stuff.

--
Kolmasaika

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Kolmasaika wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Cool! Thanks for that tip!

--
Q: Do you know what the death rate around here is?
A: One per person.

[Carlos E.R.]

I will never use powerline telecomunications, nor recommend it to to
others, and that's the main reason.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Carlos E.R.]

Well, it simply means that the upgrade procedure is badly designed. Ie,
it attempts the actual upgrade without having completed and verified the
upgrade package in some local memory.

Where I live, Internet itself could crash in the middle of any download,
and come back a minute later on another IP.


Ditto for those devices that allow starting the firmware upgrade with a
half charged battery. Bad design.

[Char Jackson]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:31:13 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <c...@invalid.es> wrote:

>On 2016-01-02 20:05, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:07:32 -0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, January 1st, 2016, at 17:57:02h -0600, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I used powerline networking for years
>>>
>>> Did you ever read this web page?
>>>
>>> <http://www.arrl.ORG/broadband-over-powerline-bpl>
>>>
>>> Or this one?
>>>
>>> <http://www.rsgb.org.UK/plt/>
>>
>> No, neither of them.
>
>I will never use powerline telecomunications, nor recommend it to to
>others, and that's the main reason.

For me, it's one tool in the toolbox. When I used it, it was the best of the
available options, meaning it was a poor choice in a sea of worse choices.
My situation has changed and now I have a much better option available,
MoCA.

[Henry]

https://nitroshare.net/
https://www.getsync.com/

[NY]

"Char Jackson" <no...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:rr7l8bdvg8dk7ss90...@4ax.com...

Yes, I'd say the same. I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I would reserve
it for the case where wireless isn't practical or where you need slightly
greater reliability than wireless can provide, especially if you ever need
unattended operation. It avoid the need to run Ethernet cable round skirting
boards, down the edge of carpets, under doorways and through holes drilled
in masonry walls.

Most modern houses can use a single router, positioned somewhere centrally
such as near a convenient phone socket in the hall or the living room, and
you can get wifi reception throughout the house. I've chosen to site out
router in my study (with a ribbon-cable phone extension to feed it) so my
main PC can be connected by Ethernet: I need that PC to be accessible
remotely by Teamviewer and I've found that wireless isn't quite reliable,
and if you are away from home you can't just reboot the PC or the router to
restore the wifi connection.

The problem comes with old houses. I've set up routers in old stone
farmhouses with walls (even internal!) that are a foot or more thick. One of
the worst had a satellite internet feed (because ADSL was so poor at that
farm) and it was situated in an outbuilding which they used as an office
(and it was not moveable except at great installation cost), and now they
wanted internet in the main body of the house. I tried a wifi range extender
but I'd have needed on in the middle of the yard as well as one in the
kitchen and one in the lounge to get the coverage that was needed. An
Ethernet cable would have had to either be buried under concrete or else
flown from poles that were high enough for farm vehicles to get underneath.

That was one of the cases where powerline networking was the least worst
solution - fortunately both buildings were on the same mains phase and the
guy was an electrician so he confirmed that there was a bonded earth between
the two buildings. Two powerline devices, one plugged into the router, with
wifi turned off and the other in the house with wifi turned on, were
sufficient to provide coverage.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2016-01-12 18:52, NY wrote:

> Yes, I'd say the same. I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I would
> reserve it for the case where wireless isn't practical or where you need
> slightly greater reliability than wireless can provide, especially if

Well, it can cause interference on other systems, possibly belonging to
other people. That's an absolute no for me. I'd only consider on
isolated houses with no neighbours.

[NY]

"Carlos E.R." <c...@invalid.es> wrote in message
news:lsrgmc-...@Telcontar.valinor...

> On 2016-01-12 18:52, NY wrote:
>
>> Yes, I'd say the same. I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I would
>> reserve it for the case where wireless isn't practical or where you need
>> slightly greater reliability than wireless can provide, especially if
>
> Well, it can cause interference on other systems, possibly belonging to
> other people. That's an absolute no for me. I'd only consider on
> isolated houses with no neighbours.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the farmhouse I described with
three-foot-thick walls had no neighbours.

If you don't use powerline, what do you use instead? Do you daisy-chain wifi
repeaters or do you run Ethernet cable along/through walls, either to each
PC or to wifi repeaters that are not in range of the router?

Are there wifi-to-Ethernet converters which can supply a network connection
to a device that only has Ethernet and no wifi (eg our Sky box) and which
are out of easy reach of an Ethernet cable (without drilling holes through
walls)?

[Jasen Betts]

On 2016-01-13, NY <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>

> Are there wifi-to-Ethernet converters which can supply a network connection
> to a device that only has Ethernet and no wifi (eg our Sky box) and which
> are out of easy reach of an Ethernet cable (without drilling holes through
> walls)?

usually called called a "wifi bridge", but some "wifi range extenders" can do
that too.

--
\_(ツ)_

[William Unruh]

On 2016-01-13, NY <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

Sure. Any wifi router will work. You run an ethernet cable from the one
router to the wifi router (The WAN link) and then you have wifi.(You do
this right beside the Sky box so no holes needed. Power is however
needed, but then the sky box probably needs power as well, that that
shuld be available)
Now 3 ft think walls might be a problem for wifi to get through, so that
would be my main worry, assuming that the sky box is on the other side
of the wall than the computer.
If you can run ethernet (up the attic and down the other side of the
wall for example) you could put the wifi in an area where there are not
walls between the wifi and the computer.

>

[Shadow]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:07:01 -0500, Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>On 2015-12-22 14:12, hank williams wrote:
>> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
>> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
>> over my local network.
>>
>> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
>> Windows?
>

>Use a USB memory stick.

+1
How large is "large" ? FAT32 only allows up to 4Gb, or
thereabouts.
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Shadow wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:07:01 -0500, Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-12-22 14:12, hank williams wrote:
>>> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
>>> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
>>> over my local network.
>>>
>>> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
>>> Windows?
>>
>>Use a USB memory stick.
>
> +1
> How large is "large" ? FAT32 only allows up to 4Gb, or
> thereabouts.
> []'s

You can always use exfat.

However, for large disks I prefer to use ext4 and avoid Windows.

--
Like an expensive sports car, fine-tuned and well-built, Portia was sleek,
shapely, and gorgeous, her red jumpsuit moulding her body, which was as warm
as seatcovers in July, her hair as dark as new tires, her eyes flashing like
bright hubcaps, and her lips as dewy as the beads of fresh rain on the hood;
she was a woman driven -- fueled by a single accelerant -- and she needed a
man, a man who wouldn't shift from his views, a man to steer her along the
right road: a man like Alf Romeo.
-- Rachel Sheeley, winner

The hair ball blocking the drain of the shower reminded Laura she would never
see her little dog Pritzi again.
-- Claudia Fields, runner-up

It could have been an organically based disturbance of the brain -- perhaps a
tumor or a metabolic deficiency -- but after a thorough neurological exam it
was determined that Byron was simply a jerk.
-- Jeff Jahnke, runner-up

Winners in the 7th Annual Bulwer-Lytton Bad Writing Contest. The contest is
named after the author of the immortal lines: "It was a dark and stormy
night." The object of the contest is to write the opening sentence of the
worst possible novel.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2016-01-18 02:01, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>>>> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
>>>> Windows?
>>>
>>> Use a USB memory stick.
>>
>> +1
>> How large is "large" ? FAT32 only allows up to 4Gb, or
>> thereabouts.
>> []'s
>
> You can always use exfat.

If sharing with Linux, it is better to use NTFS, it has better support.
For instance, in openSUSE NTFS is supported out of the box, but EXFAT
isn't (too proprietary and protected).