Omar, can you do a

sudo dmesg -w

then plug in a USB cable connected to a device known to work and put any error messages here?

How can something be "too stable" or "too unstable"? Isn't it kind of like saying you're too pregnant? Either your pregnant, or you're not.

Also, this will need to be uncommented;

Can you paste a copy of /etc/default/grub here?

I think that you can clear this up by doing;

This is very helpful @mak, thanks. I'll read up.

Comments that were removed can be discussed in a separate issue: https://tracker.pureos.net/T722

What does

Can you paste a copy of you grub.cfg file? Either here or in a pastebin somewhere? That might help debugging the issue. You grub.cfg file likely won't have any secret info, just things like the command line to boot your system as well as the UUID of your disks.

Nope. Installing libcanberra-gtk-module and libcanberra-gtk0 doesn't help.

I can reproduce this. I also get a message "Gtk-Message: 09:43:04.539: Failed to load module 'canberra-gtk-module'" when I run this so perhaps the error is there.

I commented out "GRUB_ENABLE_CRYPTODISK=y" in/etc/default/grub then ran sudo update-grub. This stopped grub from asking me for a password.

Also, could they provide more information, like actual log files or similar? Currently it is just port numbers and IP addresses which are no evidence of anything.

Did you run

Software and Updates starts, it just fails to find a distribution template for PureOS

In the grub package in Debian there was a configuration change that PureOS inherited. That change is the addition of an enabled display of the encryption password prompt. Can you check to see if there is a "GRUB_ENABLE_CRYPTODISK=y" line in/etc/default/grub ?

These are just warnings and do not affect boot.

I agree @mak, folks can install via GNOME Software.

I'll join you @guido. Let me poke around on this to see where I can contribute to packaging. In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can't get into the build tool we're using to see if I can't nudge a couple packages into showing up in the repos.

I think there are a number of extra packages in our default image. I hope to collect a list of those and winnow down our images to improve security by limiting surface area and to limit the amount of applications we have to support.

flashrom does not even display its version number via flashrom —version - it complains about being unknown on PureOS after being updated from 0.99 => 1.0.

I understand. My only comment is that Ubuntu's boot process is less free and overall protects your privacy a bit less, but I understand there is a trade-off between privacy and convenience that we all have to make personally.

One difference between us and Debian is that we modify Firefox with various privacy tools and add-ons. @jonas.smedegaard would you be able to determine if the patches we add might be the source of the web calls out? Perhaps there is a black list being downloaded at first run or similar.

Maybe they could run opensnitch to see if we can get more detail about the processes opening the ports? It looks like the web browser is doing this since they're 443 or port 80

Awesome! Thanks @soapergem! Have you configured Exim (a mail transfer agent) to run on your laptop? If not my recommendation would be to disable it. You can disable it, which just stops it from starting up, this way;

Regarding swap, yes you can run without swap. It can be nice to have however if you don't have a lot of memory.
Regarding cryptsetup, that is a warning and not an error, this shouldn't be preventing your boot

What evidence is there that the password was "destroyed"? Is it possible that something else happened? I say this because the GNOME disks dialog is stating that there was an error changing the passphrase, it doesn't say that the password was changed or destroyed.

This affects Ubuntu as well, leading me to believe the issue is upstream in GNOME disks; https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-disk-utility/+bug/1790979

Here are the warnings from cryptsetup's FAQ. We need to determine which one is relevant to GNOME Disks before advising users to use GNOME disks.

It looks like using GNOME disks may change the LUKS header file when it does a wipefs. I would warn users about this and instead refer folks to this resource: https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#2-setup

This FAQ may help: https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/wikis/FrequentlyAskedQuestions

This is likely a duplicate of https://tracker.pureos.net/T202

Where are we on this? Have things connected or are there still issues that I can help with?

Honestly I don't know where this bug or issue might be. On my Librem13 v3 with a 34" external screen and at 100% scaling both displays "just work". Can you share a screenshot of your "display mode" in the control center?

We only have one installer in PureOS and that is Calamares

I can't reproduce this. My laptop 'suspends' when the lid is closed.

With regard to installers, it is unclear to me which installer is the default. This is relevant because I'm trying to diagnose a situation where the installer fails on disks that are 4 TB large. It looks like, from the files that show which packages are included in the ISO, that we also have a 'pureos-installer' and a 'pureos-live-installer' along with 'calamares' which appears to be an installer as well. I assume that pureos-installer is the default (and pureos-live-installer is just for GNOME Live?

Is there a link to the ISO? I'm planning on doing some testing of images so that we can measure 'reproducibility', knowing which image was used as the ISO for PureOS installation in this bug will serve as a good starting point. If this is no longer an issue, perhaps we close the issue?

Great, thanks for the reply. What triggers the build? Is it possible for me to trigger a build? I'd like to test our PureOS ISO for reproducible builds so I'd like to build two images of PureOS twice and test with diffostat.

So next in line to be tested in the February 2nd release, yes? If so what do we mean by "test", are we sanity testing i.e. it works in my machine kind of thing? I'd like to create a more formal QA process around this and would like to start from how we test today.

Thank you Jonas!

I recommended using 'tracker reset --hard' with GNOME photos, but it deleted some screenshots so caveat emptor; you may lose data.

flashrom 1.0 in PureOS and new Debian maintainer upstream.

So this issue seems to boil down to a wishlist item "bring in yacy to PureOS". PureBrowser has no leverage over what public search engines serve with regard to proprietary or non-proprietary javascript.

We should not mark the issue as "resolved" until it is no longer "broken" regardless of whether it is in the installer, green, or landing.

Well, I don't see how 'aggressive' fits here either way.

Users also have the option to install "unofficial" flatpak'd Firefox here if they feel comfortable with the possible lack of security: https://firefox-flatpak.mojefedora.cz/

Restarted browser. Garbled text disappeared.

@actualben Thanks for your comment, this helps me. I'll try and read up a bit to understand exactly what we're bringing in and see what is required.

While I'm using a Librem, it is a 13v3 which is a version later than yours and don't have access to a v2 at the moment. I have no problem with higher resolutions however using GNOME Settings in the manner you specify;