Random thoughts.... [Tech Edition]

Seems like an equally bad decision to have the device configured to do that by default :dunno:

It's normally not accessible from the internet, because it requires an active port forward on your router, and most ssh daemons don't do UPNP, so it's safe to assume that it was something they did willingly.
 
I'm starting to need and want a new backpack. The zippers are starting to crap out and the once nicely padded laptop compartment isn't as nicely padded anymore.

The laptop is a 13" Macbook Air and I'm probably not going to get anything bigger than that any time soon, but I also need to carry wads of A4 paper and various other bits and bobs (a zipper bag with a tangle of wires to connect anything to everything, a power bank, etc etc) so I figure a bag sized for a 15" laptop would be suitable.

Been looking at this Samsonite. Anything else in the price range I should be aware of?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsonite-School-Backpack/dp/B01EVILP0A
 
I'm starting to need and want a new backpack. The zippers are starting to crap out and the once nicely padded laptop compartment isn't as nicely padded anymore.

The laptop is a 13" Macbook Air and I'm probably not going to get anything bigger than that any time soon, but I also need to carry wads of A4 paper and various other bits and bobs (a zipper bag with a tangle of wires to connect anything to everything, a power bank, etc etc) so I figure a bag sized for a 15" laptop would be suitable.

Been looking at this Samsonite. Anything else in the price range I should be aware of?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsonite-School-Backpack/dp/B01EVILP0A

I was going to suggest Peak Design Everyday Backpack, but it's more than twice the price :|
 
Also, owning one myself, it's not perfect if you're lugging paper around, I feel. I usually don't have anything in the laptop compartment apart from my (fairly slim) 14" Lenovo t460s (30 liter version of the backpack).

Edit : sure you could use the main compartment for the papers, but that way you won't utilize the interior dividers much of at all, so a little of a waste
 
Last edited:
I have a bit of a problem: I want to use a PC without a monitor. Usually I just ssh to it, so that's fine. However, sometimes I need to access the desktop with VNC (because some applications are just much easier to use with a GUI than with a console, and I want to run them locally). However, without a physical screen connected the iGPU turns off completely (and there is no dedicated GPU in the system), the rendering of the desktop is therefore handled by the CPU instead (which is painfully slow and laggy), and the resolution is reduced to 800x600 (which looks funny on my 3440x1440 screen).

Apparently there is some sort of "dummy driver" that makes Ubuntu think there is a screen attached at lets you select resolutions above 800x600 (and keeps the GPU active, so everything is fast and responsive). However, that driver only caused my PC to ignore any connected screen (no image) and still only work with the CPU for desktop rendering, as well as keeping the resolution at 800x600.

Back in the good old days you could just solder a couple of resistors onto a VGA plug to fake a monitor, but nowadays everything is digital (the iGPU only has an HDMI port) so I would need to buy to a "screen emulator" which pretends to be a monitor and costs around 30 ?.
 
I have a bit of a problem: I want to use a PC without a monitor. Usually I just ssh to it, so that's fine. However, sometimes I need to access the desktop with VNC (because some applications are just much easier to use with a GUI than with a console, and I want to run them locally). However, without a physical screen connected the iGPU turns off completely (and there is no dedicated GPU in the system), the rendering of the desktop is therefore handled by the CPU instead (which is painfully slow and laggy), and the resolution is reduced to 800x600 (which looks funny on my 3440x1440 screen).

Apparently there is some sort of "dummy driver" that makes Ubuntu think there is a screen attached at lets you select resolutions above 800x600 (and keeps the GPU active, so everything is fast and responsive). However, that driver only caused my PC to ignore any connected screen (no image) and still only work with the CPU for desktop rendering, as well as keeping the resolution at 800x600.

Back in the good old days you could just solder a couple of resistors onto a VGA plug to fake a monitor, but nowadays everything is digital (the iGPU only has an HDMI port) so I would need to buy to a "screen emulator" which pretends to be a monitor and costs around 30 ?.

If it's running Ubuntu, can't you run an xserver on the PC you're remoting from and forward everything over SSH instead of VNC?
 
Did you have a port forwarding for Port 22 to your Pi or was it "just" accessible from inside your network? In the latter case it's not as critical, but you still should at least change the default password.

Passwords? In 2017? Jeez guys, have you not heard about public key authentication?

I personally have all my SSH-enabled things run pubkey auth only. Good luck bruteforcing my Curve25519 keypairs.
 
My broadband modem/wi-fi unit has 4 ports, and I have 5 devices.

So, right now I have a Linksys wireless router plugged into my modem. For some reason, I've just always had trouble with conflicting settings, devices not being able to connect to each other if they are plugged into the different units, and other weird bugs...and the wifi signal from the modem itself is stronger than the one on my Linksys router, anyway, so I'm literally only using it as a switch.

So what that said, I'm thinking I just want to throw up my hands, give up, and replace that router with a switch.

I'm looking at this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A128S24/ref=twister_B06XDLVVF6?_encoding=UTF8&th=1

So...the description says "Plug and play, no configuration needed". Is that literally correct? Should everything see themselves as if they were all plugged into the same device?
 
TP link is a decent brand, an unmanaged switch is supposed to do exactly what you need, it's a dumb switch and just links everything plugged into it to the network. Though why not get the 8 port for 5$ more and ensure youre not at the limit of usability? (if you were looking at the 5 port one, i mean)
 
Last edited:
My broadband modem/wi-fi unit has 4 ports, and I have 5 devices.

So, right now I have a Linksys wireless router plugged into my modem. For some reason, I've just always had trouble with conflicting settings, devices not being able to connect to each other if they are plugged into the different units, and other weird bugs...and the wifi signal from the modem itself is stronger than the one on my Linksys router, anyway, so I'm literally only using it as a switch.

So what that said, I'm thinking I just want to throw up my hands, give up, and replace that router with a switch.

I'm looking at this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A128S24/ref=twister_B06XDLVVF6?_encoding=UTF8&th=1

So...the description says "Plug and play, no configuration needed". Is that literally correct? Should everything see themselves as if they were all plugged into the same device?

You can supposedly use a router as a switch by plugging your modem into one of the LAN ports instead of a WAN port (and turn off DHCP on the router).
 
TP link is a decent brand, an unmanaged switch is supposed to do exactly what you need, it's a dumb switch and just links everything plugged into it to the network. Though why not get the 8 port for 5$ more and ensure youre not at the limit of usability? (if you were looking at the 5 port one, i mean)

Yes, in my experience unmanaged switches really are plug and play.

You can supposedly use a router as a switch by plugging your modem into one of the LAN ports instead of a WAN port (and turn off DHCP on the router).

But this should also work.
 
TP link is a decent brand, an unmanaged switch is supposed to do exactly what you need, it's a dumb switch and just links everything plugged into it to the network. Though why not get the 8 port for 5$ more and ensure youre not at the limit of usability? (if you were looking at the 5 port one, i mean)

Thats what Im using
 
Anyone have experience or opinions on what Wifi Mesh Network setup would be most appropriate for a large house (~7000 square feet) with some thick walls (6-10 inches)? Orbi, Eero, and Google Wifi seem to be most often recommended, though maybe going with a more commercial minded system would be better, but I'm not familiar with those and we're trying to keep this down under $500. I'm thinking we'll need 3 or maybe 4 units for good coverage. Currently we have a normal wireless modem and a repeater which covers most of the main room and the front two bedrooms with a just OK signal. I know hard wiring would be preferable, but that will not be simple or easy here, which is why we want to go with a wireless mesh system. The other thing to keep in mind, this is in a fairly remote place, so the internet speed available is fairly low, around 15Mb I believe, and there aren't power users that will be using the network, just normal people doing web browsing and watching the occasional video, so I think the mesh systems will be fine.

Right now I'm leaning toward the Google Wifi system on the basis that I can get 3 or 4 units and come in within the budget, with the plus side that I'll be able to monitor and troubleshoot the network from my phone without being there (It's about an hour and a half away from me and there aren't really tech minded people there to troubleshoot it). The Orbi and Eero systems are more expensive and their advertising suggests they don't cover quite as much square footage as we'd like. Any other thoughts?
 
It's far from a permanent solution but i recently discovered that Windows 10 can host an ad-hoc network and connect to existing wifi at the same time on the same network card. So my desktop sometimes serves as a large expensive repeater to my bedroom.
 
Anyone have experience or opinions on what Wifi Mesh Network setup would be most appropriate for a large house (~7000 square feet) with some thick walls (6-10 inches)? Orbi, Eero, and Google Wifi seem to be most often recommended, though maybe going with a more commercial minded system would be better, but I'm not familiar with those and we're trying to keep this down under $500. I'm thinking we'll need 3 or maybe 4 units for good coverage. Currently we have a normal wireless modem and a repeater which covers most of the main room and the front two bedrooms with a just OK signal. I know hard wiring would be preferable, but that will not be simple or easy here, which is why we want to go with a wireless mesh system. The other thing to keep in mind, this is in a fairly remote place, so the internet speed available is fairly low, around 15Mb I believe, and there aren't power users that will be using the network, just normal people doing web browsing and watching the occasional video, so I think the mesh systems will be fine.

Right now I'm leaning toward the Google Wifi system on the basis that I can get 3 or 4 units and come in within the budget, with the plus side that I'll be able to monitor and troubleshoot the network from my phone without being there (It's about an hour and a half away from me and there aren't really tech minded people there to troubleshoot it). The Orbi and Eero systems are more expensive and their advertising suggests they don't cover quite as much square footage as we'd like. Any other thoughts?

You pretty much covered it, Google is the newest player in the game but they do seem to know networking. Eero is the one I hear is recommended the most, no personal experience. On a generic mesh network note, as long as each base station can connect to the other you should be OK but do keep in mind that it's more like a cell network and less like a daisy chain so you may need to have some additional units for a stable signal.

Wiring can be done relatively cheaply with wire mould or similar raceways so that you don't have to go inside the walls, of course they will not look nearly as good as nothing being there.
 
Something to bear in mind with that, the Ethernet over power lines didn't work on circuits my father added to the circuit breaker panel in his house after the house was finished.
 
Something to bear in mind with that, the Ethernet over power lines didn't work on circuits my father added to the circuit breaker panel in his house after the house was finished.

It's also slow (comparatively) and you have to be on the same circuits.
 
Top