I make notes of places to return to look for fungi. This is a prime spot, beside the river. It will definitely have a few different fungi emerging soon. There's several fallen trees, heaps of moss & lichen covered broken branches, with loads of natural leaf mulch - perfect environment for new fungi to grow out of 🙂
With 39C3 coming up… What even schedule software do we have?
I know there’s a KDE one, but as I’m on Phosh, there’s probably something that’d fit a bit better.
With 39C3 coming up... What even schedule software do we have?
I know there's a KDE one, but as I'm on Phosh, there's probably something that'd fit a bit better.
Most people are in favor, a minority aren't. Population inversion should scare people more than it does, but right now the current dominant fear for people is housing costs, which immigration rates are being (very incorrectly) blamed for.
If you ask the average person, they probably would reply "immigration is fine as long as we can provide for everyone". The average left-leaning person would be more likely to drop the conditional, and the average right leaning person would say "verb the noun" and ask why we're letting immigrants take out 300k loans from banks and then leave the country with the cash[1].
It's a mixed bag, as with anywhere.
[1] this is not happening in any meaningful capacity and most immigrants can't secure any credit at all without collateral, but this is nonetheless a very real conversation I've had with a post-secondary educated semi-friend who really should know better
Its good. Its how I'm in Canada. Auto companies in 70s didn't have enough skilled machinery repair and retool workers so they reached out to recruit from the UK and Europe. So my parents came over with us kids.
My coworker was an immigrant and got his citizenship and now votes against immigration... So go figure.
It’s good to a point. You have to have the social supports to maintain a minimum standard. Letting too many people in at once and suddenly nobody has houses or doctors is not a good outcome for new or established Canadians.
Also reminder that voluntary immigration and temporarily accepting persecuted people for humanitarian reasons are different things.
Sure. That’s why we have a system that fast-tracks professions in need over those without those qualifications.
We opened the gates in COVID because businesses convinced gov’t that there was a worker shortage (e.g “nobody wants to work for as cheap as we want to pay them”) in unskilled categories like hospitality, and because our student visa requirements are so lax that they effectively allow full-time employment instead of going to school. IMO these are two areas that need policy reform.
We also have valuable people who have immigrated returning to their expatriate countries because the path to citizenship promised is taking years or decades longer than they were promised. That’s just as unacceptable to me and we have to do better to retain doctors, engineers, and other professionals from whom we could mutually benefit.
Population growth masks underlying late stage capitalism problems. If we're relying on continuously growing to cover bad short-term policy, then we should rethink that.
What type of immigration are we talking about? A small amount from a diverse set of countries to enrich Canada with culture, new ideas and talent; or the type of mass immigration we've seen over the last 3 years that drives down wages, increases rents, and encourages cpmpanies to enrich themselves by taking advantage of them, that got so bad Canada got called out by the UN for modern day slavery?
I'm vehemently against TFW programs and the kind of immigration you mentioned.
We have a lot of skilled, educated people here. If you have the audacity to claim a labour shortage and not acknowledge that prices increase supply, then get fucked.
In fact, hiring immigrants for lower wages than domestic labour should be the sign that what's being done is illegal and against the interest of the people of Canada.
The fact that Tim god-damn Hortons had TFWs is disgusting.
To be clear, I don't have an issue with immigrants, or skilled workers filling jobs. I have an issue with claiming labour shortages to cut wages. Or using immigration to cut wages in the aggregate.
I hate the short-sightedness we have by allowing this type of shit in the country. We do the immigrants no good because we're paying them shit wages in a country with an HCOL. These jobs can be also be done by the youth and others which we're stealing from them as well. All because these our coffee shops NEED to pay these execs big money. It's disgusting.
Student visas should be an encouraged pathway for immigration.
Give me your young, your ambitious, \ Your huddled masses yearning to study and create, \ The frustrated youth of your teeming shore.\ Send these, the ones willing to learn how to be Canadian scientists, doctors, scholars and artists, \ I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
I'm immigration positive. I think we grow as a country and culture by inviting in other cultures.
I would like to see us do more for those seeking asylum.
I think we should try and scalp as many doctors as we can with tax breaks and other things.
I'm fine with people seeking to come to Canada for University because that helps our education system.
I would like to see more protections for those coming to Canada and basically being slave labour for those that brought them in. This is a huge problem in the South Asian community and I've known several people brought in and forced to work fucked up hours for almost zero pay under the threat of being fired and having a visa revoked. The scum doing this are usually from the same home country on permanent residence status. If discovered, these people need to have PR revoked and kicked out of the country. Luckily we were able to find these people new honest jobs but they refused to report the previous agents and employers for fear they could still retaliate.
Shouldn't we address why population growth is so stagnant in our population to require constant immigration to boost our population? Why are so many people having fewer and fewer children? Could it be that housing, food, everything is skyrocketing in price and yet wages haven't increased in decades?
Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about this issue 2 decades ago: The Two Income Trap.
It used to be that you could afford a mortgage on 1 income. Now you can’t even afford it on 2. The explosion of 2 income households has made it much harder to compete in the bidding wars for housing.
At the same time, homeowners (NIMBYs) go to city hall and fight tooth and nail to protect their investments by blocking new housing development. It’s this horrible cycle of ladder pulling.
I haven't read, but read a brief summary. Thanks for sharing.
It felt unintuitive to me at first. Why would two incomes be more risky than a single income? But yeah if one of those two become incapicated/unable to find work.. you are screwed since you need both. Single income you essentially have a backup (assuming they can find work)
So, reduced work week would free up needed time and reduce convenience costs, but families are still exposed.
But I don't want to go back to a single income household at a societal level (doesn't sound like EW did either). Tricky.
To consume her enemies and grow mighty from their combined strength until she becomes too powerful, and a global army has to be assembled to defeat the 900 foot tall super monster who has made her way to Tokyo and is devouring all in her path.
God I wouldn't have the energy to raise kids. I work, my wife works, and working to pay someone else to raise my kids that I only see when I finish work sounds like shit.
You do realize that these things go hand in hand, no? Capitalists ~~need~~want cheap labor, so they exploit immigrants, in turn driving down wages for everyone.
Edit: I received some criticism as though I'm suggesting "immigrants are taking our jobs" - that's wrong. I'm only saying that capitalists are exploiting a vulnerable population, which in turn creates more wage stagnation as the market is flooded with cheap labour.
I'm very pro-immigration, but I try to understand the nuance it has on the job market.~~___~~
This is a short sighted view. Immigrants don't just "take a job". They also require food, shelter, transportation, entertainment, etc, all the things that create demand, the actual job creator. To the extent that our immigration suppresses wages, it's because we bring many of them in as TFWs. If we just made it easy for them to get citizenship rather than forcing them into an easily exploitable position wage suppression would be much less of an issue.
Holy, straw man argument much? You took one sentence, misinterpreted it, and spiraled it into a complete made-up narrative.
My only point is flooding the market with cheap labor has a ripple effect that brings down wages as a whole, not just for those being exploited. Nothing I said suggests that immigrants are to blame by "taking our jobs".
TFWs aren't the only way immigrants are being exploited, that is short sighted. There's also PGWP propped up by phony trade schools and community colleges. TFWs give capitalists leverage, but it's not the whole problem.
My only point is flooding the market with cheap labor has a ripple effect that brings down wages as a whole, not just for those being exploited. Nothing I said suggests that immigrants are to blame by “taking our jobs”.
Please. People who use Marxist language to justify their xenophobia are the fakest "leftists".
Lmao. Thar is exa tly what you mea. Yoy may not intend it in a derogetory way but "flooding the market with i.migrants" 8s by definition " dey took ur jerbs"
Nope. That puts blame on immigrants, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I solely argue the nuance of having a disproportionate amount of unskilled workers caused by capitalism. If you don't understand that, then you're probably one of those workers.
I wonder if people realize that if we were to (as a thought experiment) get rid of all immigration but replace that entirely with homegrown birth rates, it would exacerbate the "problems" with population growth far more than doing it with immigration. Instead of bringing in working people who can start contributing to the economy essentially immediately, we would be bringing in children who would be drains on our resources for the next 18 years until we can educate them and get them into productive roles. The benefit of immigration is that some other country pours the resources into turning a child into a productive adult and then we reap the rewards.
I'm not saying immigration is good or bad, just that it's a symptom not a cause of an underlying issue.
Also, how many uber drivers have you met that are doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc waiting for their certification to be validated before they can work? It's anecdotal but I've met a lot of immigrants with professional degrees driving for uber because they can't work for months to years because they need to get recertified/authorized.
The answer to this is really simple: the more money you have, the less children you have…or vice verse.
You’re asking why comfortable or wealthy people have less children? Because children are very expensive. You literally can’t be wealthy if you have a lot of children…or you will be far less likely to wealthy.
Short story long: most Canadians have to run on the hamster wheel to meet capitalist/materialist goals and delay having children.
Why are so many people having fewer and fewer children?
Becase you have given women automony; via work, the right to choose and mostly taken religious shaming away. When they control their destiny, they'll mostly choose 0,1 or 2 children.. Replacement rate for a steady population is 2.1
No amount of childcare subsidy or work flexibility will change that, it's the same in places like Swdean. Same all over the world in developed countries
To be clear, nobody sane is arguing against women's rights. It's just an inconvenient truth.
That and micro plastics in our balls means that the future is a lesser Children of Men, which honestly is for the best considering the most ecologically damaging action for sustainability is having kids.
I hate that this is the default thinking here. We just need to get people out of the office and we can stop wasting money on office buildings, roads and transit. We have plenty built already if we didn't insist on forcing everyone to go somewhere every day to do something they just as easily could have done at home. Not building out more than we need also helps with that whole boiling ourselves in our own atmosphere thing too.
I'm all for having better transit, but I think that if you didn't have to design around a peak period where everyone had to get from the suburbs to the downtown core and back, you'd be able to move the bussing around so that it provided better routes and more even coverage, and you wouldn't necessarily have to spend more to get that result. I would advocate for that and keeping people home to see how it works in a given city before building. But I'm sure that even with reduced demand, there are cities that have less rail then they should.
Smaller pockets of liquid water—some of which could reach a balmy 68 degrees Fahrenheit—can concentrate collections of life-sustaining nutrients, improving the odds simple organisms could evolve.
that's surprising to hear about another celestial body; they're usually too extremely hot or cold.
It seems like a lot of the moons in the outer solar system may have oceans that are just right. They get heated through tidal forces, and have liquid water along with volcanic vents similar to what we have in deep oceans where there's lots of life around them.
If you’re using redshift on Linux, I made a small tool that might be useful. It automatically sets the screen temperature based on the current time, you just draw a curve for how you want it to behave during the day. Then you can just add it to crontab to run every minute or hour.
Yes very similar, but I dont think you can have more than 2 points there? Here you can set as many points as you want and it calculates a Catmull-Rom curve.
Haha thanks! I don’t think so, no, at least not with this tool directly. But what you can do is build on top of it, since the points are stored in a config.json. Code that reads a light sensor value could then edit the graph by updating that config.
Nice! You should put a LICENSE file in your repo with the MIT license inside (Cargo.toml has the license key, but you really should have a file in your repo too)
Also USSR/China were both socialist states run by communist parties. There has never been a communist country; only countries run by communist parties.
There has never been a communist country; only countries run by communist parties.
They were “communist” just as much as North Korea is “democratic”.
Just because a word exists in a name, doesn’t mean that the word actually applies in any fashion whatsoever. The political parties of both the USSR and China were as communist as fish are birds. Which is to say, absolutely not. They wore “communism” as a thin veneer of legitimacy over a bulwark of feudalistic authoritarianism.
And the real clue is in the name: Communism. Communal. No real leaders aside from administrative functionaries. Classless and cooperative. Everything that the USSR and China never was.
Edit: Russia became communist in 1917. By every metric with which you could possibly measure communism, it was dead by 1918.
You're splitting hairs, no state can be communes by definition so it's a moot point. The term "communist country" is a colloquialism refers to centrally planned socialist states that have or had a stated goal to one day achieve communism. There's no point in getting riled up about it.
I honestly think that if every self-identified leftist decided to spend 365 contiguous days without voicing even one opinion that involves semantics, we would end up with a net benefit to the cause because it wouldn't be actively damaged for a change.
So am I misunderstanding or is the problem that the set of "victims of communism" setminus the set of all fascists is too small and fuzzy to be a Schelling point people can agree on?
Switched off windows last month to POP OS, though they just recently came out with a new OS featuring cosmic instead of gnome. Has anyone here used it for gaming? How is it? I've read people having issues with it when it was in beta.
I have not done a ton of gaming on it yet, but had no issues (Framework Desktop). I tried Horizon Zero Dawn Remaster, loaded up super quick.
I have some minor non-gaming issues with Cosmic, like Cosmic Files not being able to pin a nfs network location. But I haven't run into anything yet that would make me move back to another distro.
Tried it awhile back. I primarily use either Gnome or MATE but I found Cosmic to be a solid setup as well. Worked well for all my games though I primarily play strategy titles (CK3, Vic3, EU5) so my experience is limited to those. The only thing that stuck out to me is that as far as I can tell Cosmic doesn't have hdr support (been a minute since I last tried it so this may no longer be true).
Can't speak for this month but last I tried was like October and I couldn't alt-tab another window over a full screen game. I'm thinking of giving another go when 26.04 popos comes out
People seem to think that the default de is the only one you can use. Do you know that you can install gnome alongside cosmic? I run popos with kde. And cosmic to test.
Tried it in beta, had to use PROTON_ENABLE_WAYLAND=1 %command% when I released that the mouse didn't stick into the game. Was just one game with that issue. Only proton-em and cachy-proton ship the wayland patches for that to work.
Yes, I've used it all through beta. It works exceedingly well. The only issue I experienced was the steam window pulling focus back from a game. So I would launch the game then minimize the steam window before the game popped up.
I'll update this tomorrow after testing a few games.
I apologise for the delay. I tested Megabonk, Roblox, Batman Arkham Origins and Ultrakill. Everything worked except Ultrakill. Vulkan renderer doesn't work for me. Probably because of Nvidia. But they did work in Hyprland.
If you are not on Nvidia, you should try it if you like tiling.
Been using beta since it came out. Almost until beta 7, needed to use KDE or some games would go black screen. But no issues at all since around November with cosmic as well. I have played gw2, marvel rivals, Helldivers 2 through steam.
I enjoyed listening to the summary by Champaign Anarchist on YouTube though. Not to say it's going to be the same as the original text but it's better than not reading it at all.
EoF is dense and difficult, but there are plenty of books from social ecologists that make his ideas more accessible. check out: communalistlibrary.carrd.co/
Just to explain this meme to ppl not familiar. Ted Kaczynski [left] (aka the Unabomber) wasn't a leftist or an anarchist. The person on the right is Murray Bookchin, a pioneer in the environmental movement.
[Kaczynski] was extremely critical of anarchism and the left, and would certainly reject that label. He was a primitivist, which is more in line with radical conservative concepts than leftism. Primitivism bases its rhetoric on a romanticized past, much like moderate conservatism, but just goes much much farther back. Thus, his writing is more in line with "eco-fascism", the new right, etc than with anarchism. - source
Primitivism argues that civilization is at the root of societal and environmental problems, and that the best/only solution is to eschew technology and contemporary social relations, and to return to a more primitive existence, i.e., blow it all up and go back to the past.
Tldr: be like The Chad Bookchin, not like The Virgin Kaczynski
Bookchin was a scumbag though so fuck him and kaczynski isn't a good reflection of "primitivism" which nobody really calls themself anymore and which you massively misrepresent in your comment and this meme.
I just installed Cachyos and I'm having trouble with mount points I think. At boot, I need a password to mount sata drives, and whatever permissions I change don't stay after rebooting. From what I can tell, it has to do with the drives mounting on /run/media, and apparently /run is a temp folder or something.
I think I need to change the mount points to something else, like /media (which doesn't exist and I'm hoping I can just create the folder and use it as a mount point?)
fstab is confusing me, can anyone help me with a quick rundown?
Edit: Think I've got it using gnome disk utility. I switched the mounts, everything boots up connected now. Had an issue where I couldn't read or write to the drives tho haha, but seems to have corrected after a reboot ( I think I may have installed ntfs-3g before the reboot). The owner and group for all of them are now root for some reason, but it seems to be working anyway.
Edit 2: If anyone is here for the same issue, I've made another post which is more directed at the issue: NTFS drives. You can find it here
... show more
I just installed Cachyos and I'm having trouble with mount points I think. At boot, I need a password to mount sata drives, and whatever permissions I change don't stay after rebooting. From what I can tell, it has to do with the drives mounting on /run/media, and apparently /run is a temp folder or something.
I think I need to change the mount points to something else, like /media (which doesn't exist and I'm hoping I can just create the folder and use it as a mount point?)
fstab is confusing me, can anyone help me with a quick rundown?
Edit: Think I've got it using gnome disk utility. I switched the mounts, everything boots up connected now. Had an issue where I couldn't read or write to the drives tho haha, but seems to have corrected after a reboot ( I think I may have installed ntfs-3g before the reboot). The owner and group for all of them are now root for some reason, but it seems to be working anyway.
Edit 2: If anyone is here for the same issue, I've made another post which is more directed at the issue: NTFS drives. You can find it here lemmy.ca/post/57140934
I had another post and got some great advice, thank you to everyone who took the time, but I've learned so much over the last 2 days that I wanted to be more direct and clear since I'm still stuck. Mostly I just want to know if I'm on the right track, and if anyone had any advice. I don't just want to get things working, I'd like to understand why. After a lot of digging, I feel like I might be close to getting it.
I have 4 secondary internal drives, and 2 external. They all mount as root 777, I can access things but I also use Emby server. Emby can see everything, but can't write. So that said, here's how it started to where I'm at, does this sound like I'm heading in the right direction?
CachyOS mounts to /run/media/user (the user folder has a lock on it) and I had to password/mount all drives at every reboot. I read something about /run being a temp folder so I looked into auto-mounting after some advice.
I learned how to set up auto mount with gnome disk utility, which writes to fstab. Great! fstab hurts my brain after filling it up the last 2 days. I set them to mount to /mnt/drivename, and they auto mount at boot. So far so good!
I can now access my drives, so I began setting up my server. No problem this time! Emby sees the directories and scans them. Finally! However even though I can rw on the drives, Emby sees them as read only. Bummer.
Checking permissions, the drives are all mounted as root, with 777 permissions (which I suppose is why I can write to them but I don't get why Emby can't, maybe because it's a different user?).
Time to get permissions! sudo chown does nothing. Still owned by root. Right click/permissions shows root:root, owner, group, other all can view and modify content, and it's all greyed out. 'Cause it's root, duh.
More digging, the drives are NTFS! Apparently Arch mounts NTFS with root ownership, permanently. This makes sense! I think I found my problem! Maybe.
Now I'm here, asking you wonderful nerds before I continue. I'm planning to change the mounts in gnome disk utility back to default (slider) and unmount and reboot. No idea if they'll mount to /run or /mnt. Next, I have ntfs-3g installed and plan to run mount -t ntfs3 /dev/sdxY /mnt though I think I either need to create a drivename folder in /mnt or add mount -t ntfs3 /dev/sdxY /mnt/DRIVENAME the drive name to the end and it'll create it maybe?
The other thing that's bugging me is that gnome disk utility writes the mounts to fstab. I'm thinking if I do it this way, fstab will still have the old info and it'll cause issues? Putting the slider back to default probably won't just clear the fstab rules. That'd be too simple haha.
I'm totally not opposed to just reinstalling yet again and starting from scratch, if my plan will work. Any guidance is greatly appreciated!
EDIT: I think I got it! For anyone with the same issue, I added uid=1000,gid=1000 to the end of the options strings in gnome disk utility. I am now the owner of the drives, Emby can do what it needs to do, and the permissions stuck after a reboot! Now I just gotta look into why that worked haha.
EDIT 2: Spoke too soon. After a reboot they were ro for Emby again. I added rw to the drive options and it worked again. But after another reboot, no go again. Turns out after each reboot unmounting then remounting works. Not sure if there's a way to make this work. Maybe they mount too soon? I dunno, but for now it's functional.
Thank you. I've since changed the mount point to /media/user/drive folder with gnome disk utility. They now boot up no problem, but I've hit some other snags haha. The mount point is owned by me but the drives themselves are root with full privileges for all users (not sure if that's normal, chown does nothing). I can manually create, delete, move, etc in the drives but my media server (emby) can access everything but cannot create or modify, it says the drives are read only. I can't remember the command I used to check but the all seem to be rw enabled. I can't change the group to emby from root either, chown seems like it succeeds but permissions don't change. They're also all fuseblk filesystem now.
Everything but the server seems to be working but I don't feel like it's right with permissions. After Ubuntu Studio I thought I'd have a handle on going to arch-based haha, everything else is perfect it's just this drive stuff that's not right.
I've reinstalled Cachy. Still having issues with setting up my emby server. I left the drives in the /run/media/user directory, though the /user folder has a lock on it. I can chown to me, but it doesn't stay after reboot. In fact nothing does, the hello screen pops up every time even when it's switched off and I had to re-do permissions on everything to let the server in. Permissions for the server say they're correct, but in the right-click permissions, the Group, Owner, Others pulldowns are blank and greyed out. This is ls -l from /run/media/user
drwxrwxrwx 1 user user 24576 Dec 18 15:26 Samsung
drwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4096 Aug 21 15:47 Seagate
drwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4096 Dec 17 20:32 'Seagate II'
drwxrwxr-x 1 user user 24576 Dec 18 15:26 'Seagate III'
drwxrwxr-x 1 user user 4096 Dec 17 20:29 'Storage Mark IV'
drwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4096 Nov 29 20:18 'Storage Mark V'
Can't see it here but the first 3 drives names and the last one are highlighted green and I have no idea what that means.
Honest critique: if you want to use arch, learn to install it manually first. I don’t like the fact that Cachy advertises itself as beginner friendly because it obviously is not.
Hit the arch wiki and learn how to mount, his file system works etc. also for love of God, stop chowning/777ing all your files 😀
Haha I didn't 777 anything, that's how they mounted as root after changing the mount point. But you're totally right, Cachy gave me the impression it would be a simple setup.
That said, I'm hoping you can answer a quick question. I've reinstalled again, changed mount points with gnome disk utility to /mnt/drivename, and they mount at boot but they're all owned by root now. I'm able to access everything (I'm assuming due to 777) and my server can see everything using sudo setfacl -m user:emby:rwx /mnt (~~but this doesn't stay after reboot and I have to do it again~~).
The server has an option to auto organize files, but it can't access the folder I use for it, it says the drive is read only (I can create/delete in it so it must be rw).
After everything I've learned, I think I need to dive into learning fstab and permissions properly, but honestly I'm pretty overwhelmed. At this point, would you say permissions and fstab are where I need to focus? Fstab because drives mount as root and permissions for, well, permissions? I'm just looking for guidance on where to st
... show more
Haha I didn't 777 anything, that's how they mounted as root after changing the mount point. But you're totally right, Cachy gave me the impression it would be a simple setup.
That said, I'm hoping you can answer a quick question. I've reinstalled again, changed mount points with gnome disk utility to /mnt/drivename, and they mount at boot but they're all owned by root now. I'm able to access everything (I'm assuming due to 777) and my server can see everything using sudo setfacl -m user:emby:rwx /mnt (~~but this doesn't stay after reboot and I have to do it again~~).
The server has an option to auto organize files, but it can't access the folder I use for it, it says the drive is read only (I can create/delete in it so it must be rw).
After everything I've learned, I think I need to dive into learning fstab and permissions properly, but honestly I'm pretty overwhelmed. At this point, would you say permissions and fstab are where I need to focus? Fstab because drives mount as root and permissions for, well, permissions? I'm just looking for guidance on where to start to solve this myself.
EDIT: I think the issue is that the drives are ntfs so they mount as root automatically. Does this sound right? Unmount in gnome disk utility and change mount options back to auto. Then mount -t ntfs3 /dev/sdxY /mnt/drivename
If this is correct, I'm still unsure about the fact that gnome disk utility made changes to fstab and I don't know if that will cause issues?
From what I can tell, it has to do with the drives mounting on /run/media, and apparently /run is a temp folder or something.
Probably not. Yes /run is a tmpfs, but that doesn't affect any other filesystems mounted inside of it - those have their own permissions (or don't in the case of FAT).
Since the drives are being mounted in /run/media they're probably being mounted by your file manager, not via /etc/fstab. You could instead have them mounted on boot by the root user via /etc/fstab (the classic way) or systemd.mount (slightly friendlier), or configure polkit to allow mounting drives without a password (more reasonable if you're talking about external or thumb drives).
The permission issue is probably for a different reason. Are you sure the filesystem(s) you're mounting supports POSIX style permissions? FAT doesn't, and NTFS requires a special flag for it. The files might look like they have permissions, but they're coming from the mount options and modifying them will eit
... show more
From what I can tell, it has to do with the drives mounting on /run/media, and apparently /run is a temp folder or something.
Probably not. Yes /run is a tmpfs, but that doesn't affect any other filesystems mounted inside of it - those have their own permissions (or don't in the case of FAT).
Since the drives are being mounted in /run/media they're probably being mounted by your file manager, not via /etc/fstab. You could instead have them mounted on boot by the root user via /etc/fstab (the classic way) or systemd.mount (slightly friendlier), or configure polkit to allow mounting drives without a password (more reasonable if you're talking about external or thumb drives).
The permission issue is probably for a different reason. Are you sure the filesystem(s) you're mounting supports POSIX style permissions? FAT doesn't, and NTFS requires a special flag for it. The files might look like they have permissions, but they're coming from the mount options and modifying them will either fail outright or not do anything.
Edit: Run lsblk -f to see all connected drives, partitions and file systems and their file system type.
Since the drives are being mounted in /run/media they’re probably being mounted by your file manager, not via /etc/fstab. You could instead have them mounted on boot by the root user via /etc/fstab (the classic way) or systemd.mount (slightly friendlier),
This is where I'm stuck. I read that changing the mount via fstab requires the UUID, which I can see with lsblk -f. But /etc/fstab has the same UUID for every drive, I have no idea what to do with it. As it is the 3 internal sata drives don't auto mount (even though they're selected in settings) and require a password to mount, and revert pemissions after reboot. I read it's due to /run but I'm stuck.
The permission issue is probably for a different reason. Are you sure the filesystem(s) you’re mounting supports POSIX style permissions? FAT doesn’t, and NTFS requires a special flag for it. The files might look like they have permissions, but they’re coming from the mount options and modifying them will either fail outright or not do anything.
... show more
Since the drives are being mounted in /run/media they’re probably being mounted by your file manager, not via /etc/fstab. You could instead have them mounted on boot by the root user via /etc/fstab (the classic way) or systemd.mount (slightly friendlier),
This is where I'm stuck. I read that changing the mount via fstab requires the UUID, which I can see with lsblk -f. But /etc/fstab has the same UUID for every drive, I have no idea what to do with it. As it is the 3 internal sata drives don't auto mount (even though they're selected in settings) and require a password to mount, and revert pemissions after reboot. I read it's due to /run but I'm stuck.
The permission issue is probably for a different reason. Are you sure the filesystem(s) you’re mounting supports POSIX style permissions? FAT doesn’t, and NTFS requires a special flag for it. The files might look like they have permissions, but they’re coming from the mount options and modifying them will either fail outright or not do anything.
They're NTFS. I just switched from Ubuntu Studio to Cachyos and they worked fine with mounting and permissions on Studio. Studio had them mounted in /media, took me a while to find that they were under /run/media on Cachy.
But /etc/fstab has the same UUID for every drive, I have no idea what to do with it.
That would be because every entry (except /boot and /tmp) is a subvolume of the same btrfs volume. Your other drives just aren't in there.
You might want to read man fstab and maybe the Arch wiki pages for fstab and NTFS. It's not that difficult as long as you make sure to not reboot with a broken fstab (using nofail is also a good idea). And yes you can just mount them to /media if you want, as long as the mount point is an empty directory.
Ubuntu Studio might have achieved this in a different way but since you're in Arch land now it's probably better to do what the Arch documentation recommends.
Haha yeah it's been a journey. 5 months into Linux but I've learned a ton. I'll start digging into this and in the mean time just settle for mounting at boot and changing the permissions to /run/media/USER every time so my server can get in. Appreciate the time, thank you.
For managing drives and mount points I usually use gnome-disk-utility because it makes everything easier and it uses mount options like nofail by default. You can choose whether a drive requires password to mount in there too.
Interesting. I just checked, is this right? Unmount > additional partition options > deselect user session defaults > edit mount point to /media? The existing mount point in that section is /mnt/2c148... is that meant to be different from /run/media that it's currently on?
/run/media is for ephemeral mount points (like a removable USB drive). /mnt is for more permanent mount points. Idr what /media is for but I have seen some Linux distros also use it for removable media.
Appreciate it. I made a folder called media in root and mounted them there per your suggestion with gnome disk utility. I think part of the problem may have been I didn't know to install ntfs-3g (only used Ubuntu Studio prior to this which had a bunch of stuff auto installed). I had an issue after mounting where all the drives were read only but a reboot solved it, though I think I installed ntfs-3g right before the reboot so I can't be sure what made it work. The drives are all owner group root root now but they work at least.
I can't tell if you are saying you literally mounted the drive at /media or that you mounted it at a subfolder, example: /media/drive1. The 2nd is the proper way of doing it.
Sorry it's the second. Each drive has a folder in /media that it's mounted in. Not sure if they're meant to be root:root though, when I chown nothing changes. I think I might need figure out chmod 755 stuff. It all seems to be working except my server can't write to any of them, it says they're read-only. They're also mounted as fuseblk.
I think I may have installed ntfs-3g before the reboot
Isn’t this the legacy driver? Why do you need it?
…Respectfully, it feels like you’re falling into the classic Arch trap of “messing with too much stuff.”
I mount a whole bunch of NTFS Sata partitions at boot, on CachyOS, and they don’t need a password or FUSE driver package or anything. It just works out of the box. The only thing I chose to mess with was adding a single mount flag in fstab, and only so it plays with Windows permissions better.
You're probably right. Did your drives mount in /run? That's where mine mounted on initial install which kicked off this whole thing. I read that /run was temp and that's why they need to be manually mounted with password at boot. I had no issues in Ubuntu Studio, and after finally finding the locations in /run I just figured it's how Cachy does it.
I'm debating just reinstalling from scratch and starting over. I must have done something wrong at install.
I just let KDE handle it. I think… it was a long time ago. I’ll turn on my PC and check my fstab in a sec.
But yeah. I’d recommend a fresh install, with the philosophy of “don’t mess with the defaults unless it isn’t working, or you have a very good reason.” As not only are CachyOS defaults pretty good, but they’re set up in a way so the system will maintain itself through updates.
It’s (ironically) very different than my experience with Ubuntu, where I had to manually maintain a bunch of stuff and fight the system packages.
Mastodon server hosted in Copenhagen, Denmark, by a dane.
All languages are welcome, Federated with other Danish servers. Focus on safety, transparency and security.
Canberra, 17 December 2025. The ambassador of the Republic of Cuba in Australia, Gilma Moreira Lino, signed the book of condolences opened by the Australian government in memory of those killed in the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, Sydney, on Sunda…
ambitiousslab
in reply to erebion • • •I use Confy. It's pretty good!
Confy - Conferences schedule viewer
kirgroup.neterebion
in reply to ambitiousslab • • •linmob
in reply to erebion • • •And then there's a relict from N900 times: flathub.org/en/apps/at.priv.to…
LinuxPhoneApps.org
LinuxPhoneApps.org