One final question: Do you know how I can access the scanner?
According to the Brother web site, your DCP-7030 uses the brscan3 scanner driver. So you need to go to the Arch Linux AUR and download the PKGBUILD and do a makepkg command to install it. Or if you have the AUR enabled in paman, you can install it from there. Notice in the AUR there are the following, brscan2 brscan3 brscan4 and brscan5. The older the printer, the lower the suffix number will be. You might want to double check on the brother web site that brscan3 is the correct one for your printer/scanner.
When the scanner driver is installed, it should instruct you to as root enter a line similar to the following:
brsaneconfig3 -a name=“Brother” model=“DCP7030” ip=“193.168.0.xxx”
When you install the scanner driver, it SHOULD give you the command format so look for it. If your printer is USB connected, I THINK but cannot guarantee that you just omit the IP portion.
EDIT: Oops, according to this Brother Web page, you only need to enter the brsaneconfigX command for network printers.
For Gnome, download “Simple Scan” from the Antergos repositories and it should work a treat. For other DE’s you might have to find an alternative to “Simple Scan”. Xsane will work but is not as user friendly as Simple Scan.
New to Antergos, installed it the other day, so far ok. I don’t recall getting prompted for a root and a user password. Users and groups does not seem to have a feature for this. Am I missing something?
As joekamprad said, at installation Antergos uses the same password for your defined user and root. It does this because it assumes most users will use sudo. I cut my computer teeth on UNIX many decades ago and as such I am old school and do not ever use sudo. When sudo is enabled, if someone hacks your user password, through sudo they now have access to ALL your system files and your computer will likely be a paper weight. With a different password for user and root AND sudo disabled, if someone hacks your user password, your essential system files are still protected by the root password.
If you want to change the root password to something different than the user password, do the following as user.
$ sudo passwd
You will receive a notice about do you really want to use sudo. Go ahead and type in your user’s password. Then change your root password to whatever you want.
With most modern distros, you cannot totally remove sudo without breaking your OS. You can thank Canonical and Ubuntu for that. But you can disable it by removing ALL users from the wheel group.
enter your root password, then as root enter
uid=1000(username) gid=1000(username groups = 1000(username),985(wheel)
“uid = real user id” “gid = effective id” “groups = all groups the user belongs to”. Your results may vary, but the main thing is to see that username is in the wheel group. To eliminate username from using sudo, as root remove username from the wheel group.
gpasswd -d username wheel
do another “id username” command and the user should be removed from the wheel group.
Now you HAVE to su (switch user) and use your root password to get to the root prompt, then issue your CLI commands as root.
rwxr-xr-x. 2 djb users 4096 Apr 21 18:29 MyFile
In the above the user “djb” is the real user id
“users” is the effective user id.
So the user “djb” and anyone in the “user” group can access “MyFile” with the following permissions
rwx for djb
r-x for anyone in the “user” group.
The remaining hardware is inconsequential for the following question.
I think it is important to know what video card you are running. Also have you tried booting CD\DVD mode as that’s what i use because the live USB doesn’t work for me.
The way I understand it, motherboards have gone through a transition from:
1 BIOS/mbr only on old boards
2 Hybrid motherboards which could do either BIOS/mbr OR UEFI/gpt to fill the gap
3 Modern motherboards that do UEFI/gpt ONLY.
Since my motherboard has the latest AMD Ryzen chip set, I am fairly sure it is UEFI/gpt only as it refused to even think about USB BIOS.
Anyway I finally got back to it and with some fudging around I was able to get Antergos Gnome lvm up and running. I had Fedora 30 Workstation Beta on my NVMe card, and I was installing Antergos on a SSD.
So in response to Joe’s suggestion of trying a LVM install, at least two of us has done it.
If someone have time, installing with LVM would be a nice try :)
I decided as a Antergos contribution, to try installing with LVM.
AMD Ryzen 7 2700
AsRock mini-itx Motherboard with AMD Promontory 470 chipset
NVMe Samsung M.2 SSD
The remaining hardware is inconsequential for the following question.
When I boot up the computer and press F11 to choose boot device, I get :
USB: SanDisk Ultra 1.26
UEFI: SanDisk Ultra 1.26
UEFI: SanDisk Ultra 1.26. Partition 2
Wanting UEFI I’m not sure what the difference is between the 2nd and third choice. I assume the first UEFI is Partition 1 and the second is obviously Partition 2.
When the Antergos image 19.4 UEFI version of Grub comes up, I get the following choices among others:
UEFI: Shell x86_64 v1
UEFI: Shell x86_64 v2
EFI Default Loader.
I tried both the UEFI option, and the UEFI Partion 2 option.
In both cases, the x86_64 v1 and x86_64 v2 gave me something to the effect that VMLinuz was not valid. Hit OK
So I Tried EFI Default Loader.
It simply brought me back to the UEFI grub with the exact same choices. If after using EFI Default Loader first, THEN choosing either grub option of x86_64 v1 or v2, it gives me the same VMLinz is not valid. But in this case when I click OK, it then brings up Antergos installer. Weird.
So version 19.4 seems to have some UEFI hiccups, but I don’t know how or if the developers can check this without the same hardware.
Now I need some advice on my options
1 UEFI BIOS choice of UEFI: SanDisk Ultra 1.26 OR UEFI: SanDisk Ultra 1.26. Partition 2
Anyone know what the difference is OR which is more desirable?
2 Antergos image 19.4 choice of UEFI Shell x86_64 v1 or v2?
I am tempted to say newer is better and go with v2. Any comments on this?
I am out of time for today, but will continue after sage advice on the above questions. Thanks in advance to anyone responding.
I would like to add i3wm to my Antergos Gnome installation.
I did a cnchi install of i3wm on a spare SSD, and want to continue playing with i3 but don’t want to be swapping SSDs to go from i3 to Gnome.
I assume Cnchi uses i3-wm and not i3-gaps. There are also a lot of other packages associated with i3:
i3blocks i3lock i3status antergos-i3-meta
which ones should I install to match what Cnchi installed?
Also, can Conky be used for the i3bar with Antergos?
Thanks for any help.
I apologize to the forum readers. I just found this thread on the forum and will start with this. Again, sorry for the unnecessary thread.
After all the above discussion on flatpaks, one might ask “Why should I even be interested in flatpaks?”
Note: What follows is my opinion of the possible future for Linux. Discuss, but please don’t kill the messenger!
Well, it all comes down to who is driving the bus and who are the passengers. During the early days of personal computing, I believe the users were driving the bus and the developers were trying to give the users what they wanted. Recently, I believe the developers are driving the bus more and more.
It started with Smart Phones, especially Android smartphones. The manufacturers didn’t want to hire massive amounts of personnel to develop apps, so they made it easy for independent developers to create apps for the smart phones. The idea seemed to flourish, hence the saying in one commercial “There’s an app for that”.
I think the developers for Linux apps want to go in that direction. There are hundreds of Linux distributions, numerous different package managers, and at least 8 to 10 different window managers/desktop environments. I have no idea how many different combinations that can be created with these variables. Developers don’t want to have to take all of those variables into consideration. They want to distribute their apps as containers in one centralized place. Then users can download their apps for any Linux distribution that has flatpaks enabled, whether they are Arch, Fedora, Debian, or any of the derivatives there of. Plus developers can control which version of libs they want to use, and system updates won’t affect them. The benefits to developers are many.
So the question is, who will be driving the bus in the future? I’m betting the developers will be doing the driving. In fact, it is already started. Fedora/Red Hat/IBM is developing a new Fedora workstation based on an immutable OS as a base from which to launch containerized apps. This is too big for the scope of this post, but if you are interested here is info on what MIGHT be the future of Linux. Again, just my opinion. I’m not pushing Fedora Silverblue over Antergos or any other distro. Especially when Silverblue is in it’s infancy. But if you’re interested:
P.S. If anyone tries Flatpaks on other DEs such as KDE or others, post your experience of what works and what doesn’t work.
I was also thinking about the pros and cons of using flatpaks as compared to using native packages. I haven’t used flatpaks ever, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
- includes all required components for an app, so it should work well out of the box
- uses sandbox/containers for increased security
I am by no means an expert on flatpaks, but from what I understand both of those statements are correct.
- is somewhat slower than native apps
- takes more space on disk and RAM
- some components of a flatpak may be outdated?
My above post states what I installed Antergos with i3wm on hardware wise. It also describes the launch times evaluation. As to “is somewhat slower than native apps” I can only offer a subjective opinion at this point. Which is I did not experience any significant speed differences when running flatpak vs Native pacman.
While I was at it, I did some experiments on Disk space and Ram Usage as follows:
With NONE of the following installed, Audacity, Gimp, Handbrake, and LibreOffice the SSD Disk usage as per the df command was:
40,019,548 Bytes or 18% disk usage
With the native pacman packages installed, the SSD Disk usages per df was:
39,420,212 Bytes or 19% disk usage
With the native pacman packages uninstalled and the flatpaks installed:
38,988,440 Bytes or 20 % disk usage
The flatpaks used 431,722 Bytes more disk space than the native packages. This is for 4 rather large applications and averages about 100 KB per app in this instance. You was right, the flatpaks require more Disk space, but in my opinion not by much.
Then with the four flatpaks installed, no native packages, I ran Htop and noted the ram usage just prior to launching an app, and then the ram usage immediately after the app launched and sitting idle just as it came up.
Audacity 330 MB prior to launch 337 MB after launch & idle 7 MB RAM usage
GIMP 321 MB prior to launch 380 MB after launch & idle 59 MB RAM usage
Handbrake 315 MB prior to launch 351 MB after launch & idle 36 MB RAM usage
Libreoffice Writer 329 MB prior to launch 419 after launch & idle 90 MB Ram usage
I uninstalled the flatpaks and installed the native pacman packages and rechecked
Audacity 328 MB prior to launch 349 MB after launch & idle 11 MB RAM usage
GIMP 326 MB prior to launch 386 after launch & idle 60 MB usage
HandBrake 316 MB prior to launch 351 MB after launch & idle 42 MB RAM usage
Libreoffice Writer 328 MB prior to launching 418 MB after launch & Idle 90 MB usage
I know this isn’t the most accurate method of measuring the amount of RAM an app itself uses, but it should be enough for our purposes. Of course RAM usage then varies according to what the app is doing, I hope this eliminates most of that. Anyway, RAM usage appears to be quite close between the two.
As to “some components of a flatpak may be outdated?” Whether it is a flatpak or an Antergos pacman package, how up to date or outdated an app is determined by the upstream developers.
- are the flatpak app sources as reliable as distro’s native repos?
I am assuming you are talking about GPG keys and other methods of autenticity of packages? I think, emphasis on think, that flatpaks either use GPG keys or something very similar. If someone else has more knowledge of this, chime in.
- do sandbox/containers (especially their bugs) create another level of security issues?
I would think that a bug operating inside a sandbox/container would less destructive inside the sandbox than outside a sandbox. Again, if anyone has more knowledge about this, chime in.
- how much slower flatpaks are? Or are they slower?
I think that was addressed above. Not much if any difference in speed in my observations.
Isn’t snappack slower on start up? That was my experience a year ago, or has it changed?
Bryan. In the early days of VCRs (Video Cassette Recorders) there was a format war between Beta and VHS. Eventually VHS won out. I believe that snappacks and flatpaks are essentially the same thing, competing protocols for application container distribution. I have no experience with snappacks, so I have no information or knowledge on them. But from what I can see, it looks like the industry is leaning towards flatpak rather than Snap. Just my opinion.
I installed Antergos i3wm on a system with low system resources on purpose. An embedded motherboard based on a Intel J1900 cpu, 4 GB ram and 60 GB SSD to see how it would perform with less powerful computers.
For Antergos with i3wm launch times were as follows for these flatpak applications
Audacity 4 to5 seconds ---- GIMP 4 seconds — Handbrake 4 to 5 seconds — Libreoffice Writer 4 to 5 seconds.
I uninstalled Audacity, Gimp, Handbrake, and Libreoffice flatpaks and re-installed them from the native pacman packages. The native launch times were as follows:
Audacity 5 to 6 seconds — GIMP 5 to 6 seconds — Handbrake 4 seconds — Libreoffice Writer 4 to 5 seconds
It wasn’t quite what I was expecting, but the Flatpak installations seem to launch slightly faster, but not enough to really matter. I, like you, was expecting the opposite.
Using Flatpaks works great in Gnome. It may or may not work well in other Desktop Environments, I don’t know having not tried other DEs.
Flatpaks works with i3wm.
I had some free time today, and I was looking for something to do. It’s been a while since I used TWM (Tiling Window Manager) which is an older version of i3. I loaded up a fresh install of Antergos with i3wm, and started playing. I tried loading flatpak on i3wm.
pacman -S flatpak
and it worked. I’ve loaded VLC, Audacity, LibreOffice, Gimp, and Handbrake. All worked right off the bat. I haven’t used them extensively yet, but no problems so far. Since flatpaks are containers, I didn’t have any dependency or codec problems.
A light OS/windows manager combination as a minimal platform for launching flatpaks. This was on an embedded motherboard based on the Intel J1900 cpu, with 4 Gig Ram and a 60 GB SSD. i3wm on this system was resource friendly and works well.