[12:43] <camelotbob> Good morning  #ubuntu-mate
[12:44] <Gosset> good morning
[12:44] <Gosset> and long life
[12:48] <kernal_> Ohayo!
[12:50] <camelotbob> Have you guys ever seen delayed movements with a wifi mouse on Ubuntu Mate?  Any mouse movements are about 1/4 seconds or more delayed.  If you spin the mouse in several circles, it takes a few second for it to repeat your action.
[12:52] <Gosset> nop
[12:52] <camelotbob> It works fine on my windows laptop, so I was wondering if it was a driver problem.  Mouse -->  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BIFNTMC
[12:52] <Gosset> I got my Ubuntu Mate a little slowlier since I installed Gnome apps
[12:58] <sixwheeledbeast> Possibly drivers are unavailable.
[13:00] <Gosset> Hi, how do I activate Trash on auto mounted ext4 partition?
[13:00] <Gosset> options are: nosuid,nodev,nofail,x-gvfs-show,x-gvfs-name=Data
[13:00] <Gosset> maybe replacing nosuid by uid=1000 ?
[13:01] <Gosset> the guys on ubuntu chan do not help me :(
[13:06] <Gosset> seriously?
[13:06] <Gosset> for me it's a basic question
[13:07] <Gosset> I it's strange I don't found the answer on Google
[13:07] <camelotbob> I found a few references to mouse lag when it's a wifi mouse.  So it's probably not ubuntu.
[13:09] <sixwheeledbeast> If you check for Additional Drivers in Software and Updates it's not technically wifi just 2.4Ghz
[13:09] <kernal_> there's such a things as a wifi mouse??
[13:09] <kernal_> why?
[13:09] <sixwheeledbeast> Gosset: I dont understand your question
[13:10] <sixwheeledbeast> No idea some wireless mice use 2.4G to a USB RX for some reason
[13:11] <Gosset> my English is poor I know
[13:11] <kernal_> adding wifi latency of course there's gonna be a delay :S
[13:11] <Gosset> there is no trash can in my auto mounted /mnt/data partition
[13:12] <kernal_> what does trash have to do with mounting a drive?
[13:12] <sixwheeledbeast> Gosset: "Trash" is only in one location on each system
[13:13] <kernal_> mount /dev/name_of_disk /where_you_want_to_mount/some_folder
[13:13] <Gosset> I see
[13:14] <Gosset> so when I delete any file from my "data" partition, it's permanently  deleted
[13:14] <Gosset> :(
[13:15] <alkisg> Gosset: if you have enough rights, a .Trash-(uid) folder is created for each volume
[13:15] <kernal_> rm /*
[13:15] <alkisg> It's hidden so you need to `ls -la` or Ctrl+H to see it
[13:15] <alkisg> But you need write access there
[13:15] <Gosset> of course I have write access
[13:15] <Gosset> it's a personal computer
[13:15] <sixwheeledbeast> Gosset: I imagine you have a .Trash file within your partition
[13:16] <Gosset> nop
[13:16] <alkisg> For example, "administrator" doesn't have write access to "/"
[13:16] <alkisg> Even on personal computers
[13:16] <Gosset> I have a lost&found
[13:16] <sixwheeledbeast> Due to the drive being treated as a removable one
[13:16] <tomreyn> the same discussion is also happening in #ubuntu currently
[13:16] <sixwheeledbeast> Ctrl+H may show hidden files
[13:16] <Gosset> yes tomreyn
[13:17] <Gosset> sorry
[13:17] <Gosset> I focus on this chan from now on
[13:17] <Gosset> the only hidden file on my separate partition is lost&found
[13:17] <alkisg> Gosset: I didn't see the start of the discussion; what file system is this, ext4? In ext4 users don't have write access to /.
[13:17] <alkisg> So they can't get .Trash folders there
[13:18] <Gosset> yes alkisg
[13:18] <Gosset> oh my
[13:18] <alkisg> You'd need to create it manually
[13:18] <Gosset> every time ?
[13:18] <alkisg> Just once
[13:18] <Gosset> ok
[13:18] <Gosset> with which name
[13:18] <Gosset> .Trash?
[13:18] <alkisg> .Trash-1000, or whatever your uid is
[13:19] <alkisg> id -u shows it
[13:19] <alkisg> Remember to chown it to your uid
[13:19] <Gosset> yes, it's 1000
[13:19] <alkisg> so, chown 1000:1000 /path/to/folder/.Trash-1000
[13:20] <alkisg> Then you can test with gvfs-trash; it should move a file from that volume inside trash
[13:20] <alkisg> (if it belongs to you, again; otherwise you can't delete it without using sudo)
[13:21] <Gosset> Now I don't know what I've typed, I don't have permissions to write anything on the partition :(
[13:21] <alkisg> It's normal not to have permissions to write to ext4
[13:21] <alkisg> sudo mkdir /path/to/folder/username; sudo chown 1000:1000 /path/to/folder/username; ==> will give you a folder for this user
[13:21] <sixwheeledbeast> I personally have my data drives as /data0 /data1 etc not /mnt/data. Then within there a .Trash-1000 was automagically made the first time I deleted something.
[13:21] <alkisg> Automounted folders go to /media/volume
[13:21] <alkisg> While /mnt/volume is wrong, FHS says /mnt shouldn't have subdirs
[13:22] <Gosset> I'll restart
[13:25] <Gosset> ok, it works ... partly
[13:26] <Gosset> I don't have write access on /mnt/Data, but I have w access to folders inside /mnt/Data
[13:26] <Gosset> strange!
[13:26] <alkisg> Gosset: what is /mnt/Data?
[13:26] <alkisg> What mounts it there?
[13:26] <alkisg> Do you have an entry in fstab for that?
[13:27] <Gosset> it's my auto mounted partition
[13:27] <Gosset> of course
[13:27] <Gosset> it automounts every time
[13:27] <alkisg>  /mnt/Data is the wrong path to use, that's why I'm asking
[13:27] <alkisg> Automounted partitions go to /media/
[13:27] <sixwheeledbeast> If the drive is internal I personally would give it a dir in root so /data0 as ext4. If removable media then I would normally format as FAT anyways and let the system mount it to /media or whereever. I feel /mnt is fairly redundant in a modern ubuntu distro.
[13:28] <Gosset> it was automatically mounted there
[13:28] <alkisg> Is this Ubuntu?
[13:28] <Gosset> I used to have it on /media too
[13:28] <alkisg> Ubuntu doesn't use /mnt to automount things
[13:28] <Gosset> yes
[13:28] <alkisg> You modified it somehow
[13:28] <alkisg> Did you put it in /etc/fstab? Paste the line here
[13:28] <Gosset> nope
[13:29] <alkisg> grep /mnt /proc/mounts
[13:29] <alkisg> What's the output of this/
[13:29] <alkisg> And, grep /mnt /etc/fstab
[13:29] <alkisg> The output of this too
[13:29] <Gosset> chown 1000:1000 /path/to/folder/.Trash-1000
[13:29] <Gosset> sorry
[13:29] <Gosset> # /etc/fstab: static file system information.
[13:29] <Gosset> #
[13:29] <Gosset> # Use 'blkid' to print the universally unique identifier for a
[13:29] <Gosset> # device; this may be used with UUID= as a more robust way to name devices
[13:29] <Gosset> # that works even if disks are added and removed. See fstab(5).
[13:29] <alkisg> Don't flood
[13:29] <alkisg> Now you were muted
[13:29] <alkisg> Wait a bit, then type the output that I asked for; it's one line, not all the fstab
[13:30] <alkisg> I think the bot unmutes you after 1 minute...
[13:30] <Gosset> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/Hk4sHQ3B98/
[13:31] <sixwheeledbeast> I'd backup fstab and re setup the drive for /data0
[13:31] <alkisg> Yup, you manually put it there
[13:31] <Gosset> I swear I didn't put it manually there
[13:31] <alkisg> sixwheeledbeast: sorry but that's not really good advice
[13:31] <alkisg> Please google for "FHS", file system hierarchy standard
[13:31] <alkisg> There are valid and invalid places to mount things...
[13:31] <sixwheeledbeast> I know about FHS
[13:32] <alkisg> Gosset: in any case, what you see is normal. It's an ext4 file system, you don't have access to /, and you have to subfolders
[13:32] <alkisg> You could chown /, but using subfolders is fine too
[13:32] <Gosset> then I'll chown /
[13:32] <alkisg> It's like "you're not able to write to /home or to /, but you can write to /home/username"
[13:32] <alkisg> Gosset: I mean /mnt/Dades of course, not / directly, right?
[13:33] <Gosset> yes
[13:33] <Gosset> I've configured all my system with /mnt/Dades
[13:33] <alkisg> OK; note that you'll no longer be able to boot from that disk, if you ever install an os in this
[13:33] <Gosset> the idea is to store my data there only
[13:33] <alkisg> As many apps expect the root dir to be root-owned, otherwise consider it a security issue
[13:33] <alkisg> OK
[13:33] <Gosset> thanks
[13:33] <alkisg> Go on, just keep that in mind
[13:34] <Gosset> solved
[13:34] <Gosset> thanks a lot
[13:35] <alkisg> np
[13:35] <Gosset> I must say that in my old PC I had the same partition as NTFS in /media
[13:35] <Gosset> to share files with Windows
[13:36] <alkisg> NTFS gets automounted with the ability for users to write to  /
[13:36] <alkisg> ext4 is different; it's automounted without that ability, and also without the ability to execute things from there
[13:36] <Gosset> but I discovered that ext4 files can be shared with a Windows partition too
[13:37] <Gosset> using Virtual Machine
[13:37] <Gosset> not a Windows partition sorry
[13:37] <Gosset> a Windows .vdi
[13:37] <Gosset> *VirtualBox
[13:38] <alkisg> With VirtualBox you're using vboxsf, not ext4, not ntfs
[13:38] <Gosset> It was stupid having the NTFS partition
[13:38] <alkisg> The files are accessed over vboxsf, something like "over the network"
[13:38] <Gosset> yes
[13:39] <Gosset> anyway, the NTFS filesystem would worth in a dual boot machine
[13:39] <Gosset> not my case
[13:40] <alkisg> Right
[13:41] <alkisg> I adviced a user for that a few months ago, maybe it was you D:
[13:41] <sixwheeledbeast> ?
[13:42] <alkisg> (that ntfs isn't needed when vboxfs is used)
[13:42] <sixwheeledbeast> oh
[13:42] <Gosset> it might be me xD
[13:43] <sixwheeledbeast> I thought you where still on about FHS
[13:45] <sixwheeledbeast> FHS has no comment on mounting other drives to /data or even Mac style /vol I have seen.
[14:02] <alkisg> 3.11. /media : Mount point for removable media 3.12. /mnt : Mount point for a temporarily mounted filesystem
[14:02] <alkisg> These are the standard mount points, unless of course a partition is reserved for another part of fhs, like /home, /var, whatever
[14:03] <alkisg> If you mount it to /data0, for example, you'd need to specially configure backup software to exlcude this
[14:06] <alkisg> Rationale . Placing the mount points for all removable media directly in the root directory would potentially result in a large number of extra directories in /.
[14:06] <alkisg> Although the use of subdirectories in /mnt as a mount point has recently been common, it conflicts with a much older tradition of using /mnt directly as a temporary mount point.
[14:16] <sixwheeledbeast> Exactly neither mount point is listed by FHS for permanently mounted drives. I can't see why you would need to backup root backup would normally be for user data anyway. I am not saying for removable media I am on about a internal extra drive. FHS as no comment on where to mount them is my point, plenty of advise on where to mount specifics but not a "data" drive.
[14:23] <sixwheeledbeast> If the drive is for a specific job listed in the FHS then it should be mounted there, that being anywhere /srv /home/user0 /opt /var/mail whatever. However, in this case /data0 is a pretty suitable place for an additional data drive and there is nothing in the FHS that explicitly forbids this.
[14:25] <alkisg> sixwheeledbeast: see the sentence above, " Placing the mount points for all removable media directly in the root directory would potentially result in a large number of extra directories in /."
[14:25] <alkisg> It's an advice against this
[14:25] <sixwheeledbeast> "removable"
[14:25] <alkisg> (from fhs copy/paste)
[14:26] <alkisg> the rationale is the same
[14:27] <sixwheeledbeast> internal drives are not considered "removable" they are as removable as the system drive
[14:28] <alkisg> We can play with words, but what's the difference between "internal drive for media" vs "external drive for media" wrt to that specific sentence?
[14:28] <alkisg> Don't they both clutter /?
[14:29] <alkisg> Backup root drive => eh, do I really need to justify why people backup their /?!
[14:30] <alkisg> Software that backs up / knows to exclude /media and /mnt, but not /data0
[14:31] <alkisg> In any case, I'm not someone for looong chats, I just wanted to point to what I've read/seen with experience; anyone can then follow whatever he likes best! Coffee time now . :)
[14:31] <sixwheeledbeast> You can have all your / subdirectories on different physical drives if you wanted. They are all part of the system and not "removable"
[14:31] <alkisg> It would be a cluttered / then
[14:31] <alkisg> That's the point of FHS, to make things make more sense
[14:31] <alkisg> You can have /data0 to /data100000 if you prefer it
[14:32] <sixwheeledbeast> you would just do /data and then sub dirs
[14:32] <alkisg> It could be /data, /mata, /pata, /fata, not specifically data0 to numberxxx
[14:32] <alkisg> Different names that don't belong in subfolders :D
[14:33] <sixwheeledbeast> yes it could if you wanted.
[14:33] <alkisg> If you prefer /data with subfolders instead of /media with subfolders, sure, you can use that too
[14:33] <alkisg> I'm just saying what FHS suggests
[14:34] <sixwheeledbeast> As I say FHS doesn't have "specific" advise for this scenario
[14:34] <alkisg> Note that they also don't mention usb sticks etc; they can't mention everything; people will need to apply their good sense in cases not explicitly mentioned
[14:34] <alkisg> That doesn't mean that distros should use /usb and /sd-card for these
[14:34] <sixwheeledbeast> No because they are covered under media
[14:35] <alkisg> How about internal usb sticks? Some boards have these too
[14:35] <sixwheeledbeast> they are "removable"
[14:35] <alkisg> Nope, not more so than sata disks
[14:35] <alkisg> They're internal usb sticks
[14:35]  * alkisg has seen people argue about specific words in manuals and books for ages; he's not really into this :)
[14:36] <alkisg> If you think this word removes the good sense behind that advice, you can surely ignore it
[14:37] <sixwheeledbeast> I am not arguing I am just defending the fact that there is no issue with mounting a /data drive like this as far as the FHS guidelines
[14:37] <alkisg> I don't see it that way; but I don't think we can convince each other either
[14:39] <sixwheeledbeast> As I say if it has a specific purpose it should be mounted there above all else first.
[14:41] <sixwheeledbeast> The point of the FHS is so there is a standard between distributions on file locations, this is why a /data would be out of scope.
[14:42] <alkisg> This argument is the same as why /media/alkisg is out of scope
[14:42] <alkisg> Or why /mnt/alkisg isn't a good place
[14:42] <alkisg> Anyway, really, we can't convince each other
[14:42] <alkisg> Let's drop it at this point
[14:43] <sixwheeledbeast> 1.1 Purpose The FHS document has a limited scope: Local placement of local files is a local issue, so FHS does not attempt to usurp system administrators.
[14:45] <alkisg> Advice only makes sense if it makes sense; what I perceive from FHS is clearly different from what you make sense of it; so each one can apply it as he sees fit
[14:45] <alkisg> I don't think anyone of us is giving advice anymore; so...
[14:45]  * alkisg waves