Hi All,
How do I tell qemu-kvm that I do not want a particular virtual machine to constantly steal my USB3 backup drives when I insert them. I have to go into the VM console and unhook them. And every time.
I tried removing the USB device, but it won't let me. I wonder if I could remove it from the XML code.
What is the right way to do this?
Many thanks, -T
On 3/15/25 12:02 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
How do I tell qemu-kvm that I do not want a particular virtual machine to constantly steal my USB3 backup drives when I insert them. I have to go into the VM console and unhook them. And every time.
If you don't want any VM to automatically get USB devices, then you can turn that off in the Virtual Manager preferences. If you don't want a particular VM to ever get USB devices, I think you could remove the USB redirector entries for that.
I tried removing the USB device, but it won't let me. I wonder if I could remove it from the XML code.
You should be able to remove it from the Redirect USB device menu in the viewer.
On 3/15/25 12:26 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 3/15/25 12:02 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
How do I tell qemu-kvm that I do not want a particular virtual machine to constantly steal my USB3 backup drives when I insert them. I have to go into the VM console and unhook them. And every time.
If you don't want any VM to automatically get USB devices, then you can turn that off in the Virtual Manager preferences. If you don't want a particular VM to ever get USB devices, I think you could remove the USB redirector entries for that.
I tried removing the USB device, but it won't let me. I wonder if I could remove it from the XML code.
You should be able to remove it from the Redirect USB device menu in the viewer.
Hi Samuel,
Right under my nose! I googled my --- off looking for that
Thank you!
-T
On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 08:10 +0000, Kim Ponting wrote:
Don't ask people to click on an unknown URL without *at least* explaining that it supposedly illustrates, and even then be prepared for people to ignore it.
poc
On 3/25/25 4:00 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 08:10 +0000, Kim Ponting wrote:
[removed link]
Don't ask people to click on an unknown URL without *at least* explaining that it supposedly illustrates, and even then be prepared for people to ignore it.
I assumed it was spam (and it is). See the last line in the footer of every email.
You've just made another email that the moderators will have to clean from the archive because you included the url.
On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 13:26 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 3/25/25 4:00 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 08:10 +0000, Kim Ponting wrote:
[removed link]
Don't ask people to click on an unknown URL without *at least* explaining that it supposedly illustrates, and even then be prepared for people to ignore it.
I assumed it was spam (and it is). See the last line in the footer of every email.
I would have had to click on the URL to know that it was spam. Unlike most spam we see here (and which I have reported a number of times using the approved procedure) the Subject line appeared to be list- related.
You've just made another email that the moderators will have to clean from the archive because you included the url.
See remarks above.
poc
On 3/25/25 3:13 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 13:26 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 3/25/25 4:00 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 08:10 +0000, Kim Ponting wrote:
[removed link]
Don't ask people to click on an unknown URL without *at least* explaining that it supposedly illustrates, and even then be prepared for people to ignore it.
I assumed it was spam (and it is). See the last line in the footer of every email.
I would have had to click on the URL to know that it was spam. Unlike most spam we see here (and which I have reported a number of times using the approved procedure) the Subject line appeared to be list- related.
That's how the spam usually works. They pick an old topic and reply to it to make it look like a valid message.
Since you replied to it, I clicked on the link to find out what it was. Normally, I just ignore emails that appear to be spam like that.
On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 15:30 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
I would have had to click on the URL to know that it was spam. Unlike most spam we see here (and which I have reported a number of times using the approved procedure) the Subject line appeared to be list- related.
That's how the spam usually works. They pick an old topic and reply to it to make it look like a valid message.
Maybe so in general, but the spam I've seen on this list (and reported) generally doesn't follow that pattern, I can't provide examples for obvious reasons.
poc
-
Kim Ponting -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Samuel Sieb -
ToddAndMargo