4:03 p.m.
Hi All,
Fedora 36
firefox-102.0-1.fc36.x86_64
This seems to be an issue specific to the
repo's edition of Firefox. Everyone on
the Firefox newsgroup get it to work.
Removing and reinstalling did not help:
https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to
esupport.gigabyte.com. You are attempting to
import a cert with the same issuer/serial
as an existing cert, but that is not the
same cert.
Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
And it works fine in Brave Browser (Blink),
Waterfox (Gecko), Waterfox Classic (Gecko),
Vivaldi (Blink), but not Tor (Gecko) which
times out.
Geez!
-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computers are like air conditioners.
They malfunction when you open windows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8:24 p.m.
On 8/6/22 14:59, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 8/6/22 15:03, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> Removing and reinstalling did not help
Was there any particlar reason to expect that to work, or was it just
copying how Windows "works" because it keeps corrupting random files?
From the error message:
...You are attempting to import a cert
with the same issuer/serial as an existing
cert, but that is not the same cert.
I was trying to get a fresh set of certs. I do
believe this is a Firefox issue, not an OS issue.
10:31 p.m.
Nuking is often the best solution if your config files, certs and
whatnot are broken beyond repair. Though you often need to remove
everything the package manager didn't touch.
I remember reinstalling php for dozens of times because I'm stupid
enough to migrate php files from my previous Ubuntu installation
*directly* into Fedora, making everything break loose. In this case,
trying to figure out how to fix it is harder than reinstalling -- and I
don't have any data to lose after all.
On 8/7/22 5:59 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 8/6/22 15:03, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> Removing and reinstalling did not help
Was there any particlar reason to expect that to work, or was it just
copying how Windows "works" because it keeps corrupting random files?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
--
From LilyWhite with love
9:05 p.m.
On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 14:03 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to
esupport.gigabyte.com. You are attempting to
import a cert with the same issuer/serial
as an existing cert, but that is not the
same cert.
If the error message is correct, then that's a certificate error not a
browser problem. It would be correct behaviour that browser shouldn't
be allowing it. A new replacement certificate oughtn't to have the
same serial number.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 15:37:28 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
9:57 p.m.
On 8/6/22 19:05, Tim via users wrote:
On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 14:03 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
> Secure Connection Failed
>
> An error occurred during a connection to
> esupport.gigabyte.com. You are attempting to
> import a cert with the same issuer/serial
> as an existing cert, but that is not the
> same cert.
If the error message is correct, then that's a certificate error not a
browser problem. It would be correct behaviour that browser shouldn't
be allowing it. A new replacement certificate oughtn't to have the
same serial number.
How do I get a new cert?
10:18 p.m.
On 8/6/22 19:05, Tim via users wrote:
How do I get a new cert?
can't answer your question, but why not update to firefox-103.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64 first
and try again ?
what is working here with your provided URL.
if that doesn't work at your side I would suggest to check
- the active FF addons
and/or
- what is wrong with your FF profile
10:39 p.m.
On 8/6/22 20:18, old sixpack13 wrote:
> On 8/6/22 19:05, Tim via users wrote:
>
> How do I get a new cert?
can't answer your question, but why not update to firefox-103.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64
first
and try again ?
I checked dnf whatprovides a few day ago and was on the latest, but I
see a new one now.
Now on:
firefox-103.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64
no symptom change
what is working here with your provided URL.
if that doesn't work at your side I would suggest to check
- the active FF addons
and/or
- what is wrong with your FF profile
New profile had the same problem.
Does yours work?
10:26 p.m.
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 8:57 PM ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
How do I get a new cert?
If you are certain that you're seeing the real gigabyte site, not some
spoof site that's going to steal your data, then go to Firefox
Settings, choose "Privacy & Security" on the left, then scroll down to
the "Security" section. There should be a "Certificates" subsection
under that. Choose "View Certificates". Choose "Servers". Do you
see a gigabyte certificate listed there? If so, delete it. If not,
then we've reached the limits of my knowledge and you're on your own.
:-)
Be really sure that the new certificate is actually issued by gigabyte
before you do this.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
10:33 p.m.
On 8/6/22 20:26, Jerry James wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 8:57 PM ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> How do I get a new cert?
If you are certain that you're seeing the real gigabyte site, not some
spoof site that's going to steal your data, then go to Firefox
Settings, choose "Privacy & Security" on the left, then scroll down to
the "Security" section. There should be a "Certificates" subsection
under that. Choose "View Certificates". Choose "Servers". Do you
see a gigabyte certificate listed there? If so, delete it. If not,
then we've reached the limits of my knowledge and you're on your own.
:-)
I looked. I did not find it. I may have missed it though
10:48 p.m.
On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 19:57 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
How do I get a new cert?
Just to be clear, this is a site cert you're concerned about? You
simply cannot make a HTTPS connection to the site?
It's not a user certificate that you're talking about? (Personal ID
credentials.)
I've just tried loading the page you mentioned on two different Firefox
installations (one on CentOS, other on Fedora). Both loaded straight
away, I didn't have to do anything. And other pages from their site
loaded okay, too.
Loading: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
Brings up: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/Login/Index?ReturnUrl=%2f
Why do you want a new certificate? Is there a pop-up warning from the
browser? Is there text telling you in a webpage from the website?
If it's a message from the website, you could have an erroneous error
message that needs flushing from your cache.
Do you have an alternative browser to test with?
You could try creating a new Linux user with a fresh homespace, and see
if the browser behaves the same way with a brand new user config.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 15:37:28 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
11:04 p.m.
On 8/6/22 20:48, Tim via users wrote:
On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 19:57 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> How do I get a new cert?
Just to be clear, this is a site cert you're concerned about? You
simply cannot make a HTTPS connection to the site?
It's not a user certificate that you're talking about? (Personal ID
credentials.)
I've just tried loading the page you mentioned on two different Firefox
installations (one on CentOS, other on Fedora). Both loaded straight
away, I didn't have to do anything. And other pages from their site
loaded okay, too.
I get the same error that Todd does.
Why do you want a new certificate? Is there a pop-up warning from
the
browser? Is there text telling you in a webpage from the website?
The text is from firefox. I don't actually understand what the message
means. But it won't even let me see the cert from the site.
Do you have an alternative browser to test with?
Chromium doesn't have the problem.
This is the message:
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to esupport.gigabyte.com. You are
attempting to import a cert with the same issuer/serial as an existing
cert, but that is not the same cert.
Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the
authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.
12:21 a.m.
Tim:
> Why do you want a new certificate? Is there a pop-up warning
from
> the browser? Is there text telling you in a webpage from the
> website?
Samuel Sieb:
The text is from firefox. I don't actually understand what the
message means. But it won't even let me see the cert from the site.
I can't get it on anything I try, the site works fine here.
I'd be guessing man-in-the-middle attacks, if it is a hack attempt.
But if it's just a service configuration issue, they might be using
caching that serves different parts of the world from different
equipment.
Though that doesn't explain why one browser fails for you and another
succeeds.
This is the message:
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to esupport.gigabyte.com. You
are attempting to import a cert with the same issuer/serial as an
existing cert, but that is not the same cert.
Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the
authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
Please contact the website owners to inform them of this
problem.
To me, the error message translates as: You're trying to use a
different (newer?) certificate that is pretending to be the prior one
(because the serial number is the same). But the browser knows there's
a conflict and rejects it.
Every different certificate should have a different serial number, it's
just the same as with hardware and serial numbers.
The "import" bit puzzles me. If you're just trying to connect, and
*you're* not trying to import a certificate (adding another to your
collection), why it says that.
I'd try:
Flushing cache, and try again. Perhaps a mangled certificate is stuck
somewhere, and that's why the browser considers them different.
Try accessing the page via another route. If I go to
<https://www.gigabyte.com/> and click the service/support link in the
top of the page, I end up at <https://www.gigabyte.com/Support>;, which
is different from <https://esupport.gigabyte.com/>
Is the original poster able to get to where they need to be on the
website through a different set of steps?
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 15:37:28 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
12:30 a.m.
On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 21:04 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
Try researching the error code.
One thing that could be a possibility, is that some other certificate
on your system has the same serial number. I'm not sure if uniqueness
is required.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 15:37:28 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
12:34 a.m.
On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 21:04 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
Supplemental:
I've never been to those websites before. Have either of you?
That could explain an old and new cert problem. Particularly if they'd
replaced/updated a cert improperly.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 15:37:28 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
1:04 a.m.
On 8/6/22 22:34, Tim via users wrote:
On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 21:04 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
Supplemental:
I've never been to those websites before. Have either of you?
That could explain an old and new cert problem. Particularly if they'd
replaced/updated a cert improperly.
I don't think I've ever been to that site unless it was a really long
time ago.
6:12 p.m.
On 7/8/22 16:04, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 8/6/22 22:34, Tim via users wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 21:04 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
>
> Supplemental:
>
> I've never been to those websites before. Have either of you?
>
> That could explain an old and new cert problem. Particularly if they'd
> replaced/updated a cert improperly.
I don't think I've ever been to that site unless it was a really long
time ago.
Just an FYI, I'm on firefox 105.0a1, and I'm in Australia, I have
never
been to that site before, and I was able to get to that support page via
http: and via https:.
regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
3:22 a.m.
On 07/08/2022 05:04, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 8/6/22 20:48, Tim via users wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 19:57 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> How do I get a new cert?
>
> Just to be clear, this is a site cert you're concerned about? You
> simply cannot make a HTTPS connection to the site?
>
> It's not a user certificate that you're talking about? (Personal ID
> credentials.)
>
> I've just tried loading the page you mentioned on two different Firefox
> installations (one on CentOS, other on Fedora). Both loaded straight
> away, I didn't have to do anything. And other pages from their site
> loaded okay, too.
I get the same error that Todd does.
What does curl report when you access that URL?
I'm wondering if is something configured in /etc (but firefox ships with
its own truststore of certs).
Barry
>
>> Why do you want a new certificate? Is there a pop-up warning from the
>> browser? Is there text telling you in a webpage from the website?
>
> The text is from firefox. I don't actually understand what the
> message means. But it won't even let me see the cert from the site.
>
>> Do you have an alternative browser to test with?
>
> Chromium doesn't have the problem.
>
> This is the message:
> Secure Connection Failed
>
> An error occurred during a connection to esupport.gigabyte.com. You
> are attempting to import a cert with the same issuer/serial as an
> existing cert, but that is not the same cert.
>
> Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
>
> The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the
> authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
> Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
3:28 a.m.
On 8/7/22 01:22, Barry Scott wrote:
On 07/08/2022 05:04, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I get the same error that Todd does.
What does curl report when you access that URL?
$ curl https://esupport.gigabyte.com -o -
<html><head><title>Object moved</title></head><body>
<h2>Object moved to <a
href="/Login/Index?ReturnUrl=%2f">here</a>.</h2>
</body></html>
8:53 a.m.
Tim via users writes:
As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their tech support
refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running Linux on their
motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
9:37 a.m.
Am 07.08.2022 um 15:53 schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
Tim via users writes:
> Loading: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
> Brings up: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/Login/Index?ReturnUrl=%2f
As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their tech
support refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running
Linux on their motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
Letting the server send its own root of the certificate chain of trust
is questionable. Trouble making is the fact that the certificate differs
from the Mozilla trust store.
Sent from the server:
TWCA Global Root CA
Fingerprint SHA256:
8ad47f6d70a44fa80af0f931125ffe3a76876ffad219a4d40a13c038dc85e69e
Pin SHA256: xES1tmzl1x4bXkDyc4XJXL/SSgW1b3DKwJkvD1DDN5w=
RSA 4096 bits (e 65537) / SHA256withRSA
In the Mozilla trust store:
TWCA Global Root CA Self-signed
Fingerprint SHA256:
59769007f7685d0fcd50872f9f95d5755a5b2b457d81f3692b610a98672f0e1b
Pin SHA256: xES1tmzl1x4bXkDyc4XJXL/SSgW1b3DKwJkvD1DDN5w=
RSA 4096 bits (e 65537) / SHA256withRSA
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=esupport.gigabyte.com&...
Alexander
1:14 a.m.
On 8/7/22 07:37, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 07.08.2022 um 15:53 schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
> Tim via users writes:
>
>> Loading: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
>> Brings up: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/Login/Index?ReturnUrl=%2f
>
> As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their tech
> support refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running
> Linux on their motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
Letting the server send its own root of the certificate chain of trust
is questionable. Trouble making is the fact that the certificate differs
from the Mozilla trust store.
Sent from the server:
TWCA Global Root CA
Fingerprint SHA256:
8ad47f6d70a44fa80af0f931125ffe3a76876ffad219a4d40a13c038dc85e69e
Pin SHA256: xES1tmzl1x4bXkDyc4XJXL/SSgW1b3DKwJkvD1DDN5w=
RSA 4096 bits (e 65537) / SHA256withRSA
In the Mozilla trust store:
TWCA Global Root CA Self-signed
Fingerprint SHA256:
59769007f7685d0fcd50872f9f95d5755a5b2b457d81f3692b610a98672f0e1b
Pin SHA256: xES1tmzl1x4bXkDyc4XJXL/SSgW1b3DKwJkvD1DDN5w=
RSA 4096 bits (e 65537) / SHA256withRSA
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=esupport.gigabyte.com&...
I think it's something to do with this. There's also:
4 Sent by server
In trust store TWCA Root Certification Authority Self-signed
Fingerprint SHA256:
bfd88fe1101c41ae3e801bf8be56350ee9bad1a6b9bd515edc5c6d5b8711ac44
Pin SHA256: ksRoeWJu8swezqUMcvteOFhECV8hy/Oyg8uC5rn8alg=
RSA 2048 bits (e 65537) / SHA1withRSA
Weak or insecure signature, but no impact on root certificate
The fingerprint doesn't match the one in the Firefox trust store.
The first chain seems valid, but not the second one. I'm not a
certificate expert, so I don't know what the implications are. However,
someone else posted that a newer Firefox version worked, so maybe it's
been resolved in some way.
1:42 a.m.
On 8/7/22 23:14, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 8/7/22 07:37, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 07.08.2022 um 15:53 schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
>> Tim via users writes:
>>
>>> Loading: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
>>> Brings up: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/Login/Index?ReturnUrl=%2f
>>
>> As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their tech
>> support refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running
>> Linux on their motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
>
> Letting the server send its own root of the certificate chain of trust
> is questionable. Trouble making is the fact that the certificate
> differs from the Mozilla trust store.
>
> Sent from the server:
> TWCA Global Root CA
> Fingerprint SHA256:
> 8ad47f6d70a44fa80af0f931125ffe3a76876ffad219a4d40a13c038dc85e69e
> Pin SHA256: xES1tmzl1x4bXkDyc4XJXL/SSgW1b3DKwJkvD1DDN5w=
> RSA 4096 bits (e 65537) / SHA256withRSA
>
> In the Mozilla trust store:
> TWCA Global Root CA Self-signed
> Fingerprint SHA256:
> 59769007f7685d0fcd50872f9f95d5755a5b2b457d81f3692b610a98672f0e1b
> Pin SHA256: xES1tmzl1x4bXkDyc4XJXL/SSgW1b3DKwJkvD1DDN5w=
> RSA 4096 bits (e 65537) / SHA256withRSA
>
>
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=esupport.gigabyte.com&...
I think it's something to do with this. There's also:
4 Sent by server
In trust store TWCA Root Certification Authority Self-signed
Fingerprint SHA256:
bfd88fe1101c41ae3e801bf8be56350ee9bad1a6b9bd515edc5c6d5b8711ac44
Pin SHA256: ksRoeWJu8swezqUMcvteOFhECV8hy/Oyg8uC5rn8alg=
RSA 2048 bits (e 65537) / SHA1withRSA
Weak or insecure signature, but no impact on root certificate
The fingerprint doesn't match the one in the Firefox trust store.
The first chain seems valid, but not the second one. I'm not a
certificate expert, so I don't know what the implications are. However,
someone else posted that a newer Firefox version worked, so maybe it's
been resolved in some way.
This is the latest one in the repo and the one
I am now on:
$ rpm -qa firefox
firefox-103.0.1-2.fc36.x86_64
The guy that got it to run was running 105,
which did not come from the repo. Only
the repo's firefoxes are having this issue.
2:11 a.m.
On Sun, 2022-08-07 at 23:42 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Only the repo's firefoxes are having this issue.
In my case (all with working Firefoxes) it was the latest package for
F36, and a prior one:
firefox-103.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64
firefox-102.0-1.fc36.x86_64
And working on CentOS:
firefox-91.12.0-2.el7.centos.x86_64
To me, it looked like some kind of site stuff-up. And, perhaps, it may
be regional (if they cache their site to the rest of the world, and
spread the load when they serve things out).
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 15:37:28 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
6:29 a.m.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 4:11 AM Tim via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Sun, 2022-08-07 at 23:42 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> Only the repo's firefoxes are having this issue.
In my case (all with working Firefoxes) it was the latest package for
F36, and a prior one:
firefox-103.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64
firefox-102.0-1.fc36.x86_64
And working on CentOS:
firefox-91.12.0-2.el7.centos.x86_64
To me, it looked like some kind of site stuff-up. And, perhaps, it may
be regional (if they cache their site to the rest of the world, and
spread the load when they serve things out).
Sounds familiar.
I used to get data from NASA. They have since upgraded significantly,
but at one time, requests were handled by a pool of servers, Often,
issues that other users couldn't reproduce turned out to be one server
that was misconfigured. NASA is a DOS target so was constanty
tweaking configurations to manage DOS attacks.
--
George N. White III
11:01 a.m.
On Sun, 2022-08-07 at 09:53 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their
tech
support refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running
Linux on their motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
Par for the course, unfortunately. My experience with PC hardware is
that they (*) always release buggy hardware, with the intention that
they can work around any bugs discovered later on in software. Of
course that's done by issuing a driver for Windows, that's if they
bother. And if they do, it's only for a year or so. After that they
expect you to buy new hardware, instead.
(* All manufacturers.)
Naturally, the thing was only ever designed for Windows, in the first
place. Whether that's simple because it's easier to only concentrate
on their biggest sales target, or due to oppression against Linux from
Microsoft is a whole 'nother argument.
We're used to being last on the list to get things in Australia, and
what we might buy as latest release in a shop may well be a year or
more behind other countries. You'd expect bugs to be ironed out by the
time we get it, but no.
Linux, on the other hand, does seem to have the advantage that if
someone can discover a bug and fix, we'll get it (without the
manufacturer's help or hindrance).
Oddly enough, if you ferret around using Gigabyte and Linux search
terms, you find an old post about them supporting Linux. I guess that
was just a passing fad, for them. There are newer posts about Ubuntu
and their server hardware; but considering Linux is considered niche,
they may only consider Linux support on a few models.
I've been lucky with hardware, new or old, finding things mostly worked
well on Linux, often better than Windows. On the odd occasion I've
bought something new that wouldn't work, the shops have been fairly
receptive about things that "I just cannot get to work." Probably
because it nearly always involves swapping it for something a bit more
expensive. I guess they'll probably just return it to the manufacture
as "not working properly" without going into much detail, or simply re-
sell it to the next muggins.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 15:37:28 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
1:59 p.m.
On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 1:01 PM Tim via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Sun, 2022-08-07 at 09:53 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their tech
> support refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running
> Linux on their motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
Par for the course, unfortunately. My experience with PC hardware is
that they (*) always release buggy hardware, with the intention that
they can work around any bugs discovered later on in software. Of
course that's done by issuing a driver for Windows, that's if they
bother. And if they do, it's only for a year or so. After that they
expect you to buy new hardware, instead.
(* All manufacturers.)
Naturally, the thing was only ever designed for Windows, in the first
place. Whether that's simple because it's easier to only concentrate
on their biggest sales target, or due to oppression against Linux from
Microsoft is a whole 'nother argument.
We're used to being last on the list to get things in Australia, and
what we might buy as latest release in a shop may well be a year or
more behind other countries. You'd expect bugs to be ironed out by the
time we get it, but no.
Canada is often used to test market new things, some of which
are duds and never get wider distribution.
Linux, on the other hand, does seem to have the advantage that if
someone can discover a bug and fix, we'll get it (without the
manufacturer's help or hindrance).
Oddly enough, if you ferret around using Gigabyte and Linux search
terms, you find an old post about them supporting Linux. I guess that
was just a passing fad, for them. There are newer posts about Ubuntu
and their server hardware; but considering Linux is considered niche,
they may only consider Linux support on a few models.
I've been lucky with hardware, new or old, finding things mostly worked
well on Linux, often better than Windows. On the odd occasion I've
bought something new that wouldn't work, the shops have been fairly
receptive about things that "I just cannot get to work." Probably
because it nearly always involves swapping it for something a bit more
expensive. I guess they'll probably just return it to the manufacture
as "not working properly" without going into much detail, or simply re-
sell it to the next muggins.
One strategy is to look for enterprise models that have been on the market
for a few years and have a track record of linux successes and failures.
Often
failures are graphics, audio, or wifi where there are options that do work
with
linux.
Used models are often readily available a couple years after introduction
when
normal business turnover results in large batches (off-lease, bankruptcy
sales,
reorganization, etc.) at vendors' refurbished system sites.
--
George N. White III
4:52 p.m.
On 8/7/22 06:53, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Tim via users writes:
> Loading: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
> Brings up: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/Login/Index?ReturnUrl=%2f
As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their tech
support refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running
Linux on their motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
Their tech support is blow off tech support. You
should see the reviews I give them!
I recently found all kinds of issues with
Windows 11 on one of their motherboards and
documented it for them with workarounds.
They refused to even look at it.
Who is your new go to motherboard supplier?
9:37 p.m.
ToddAndMargo via users writes:
On 8/7/22 06:53, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Tim via users writes:
>
>> Loading: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
>> Brings up: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/Login/Index?ReturnUrl=%2f
>
> As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their tech support
> refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running Linux on their
> motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
Their tech support is blow off tech support. You
should see the reviews I give them!
I recently found all kinds of issues with
Windows 11 on one of their motherboards and
documented it for them with workarounds.
They refused to even look at it.
Who is your new go to motherboard supplier?
I haven't found one yet. My hardware project was put on hold.
But, looking at my old hardware, that I'm trying to replace: it seems that
with only a few exceptions it's based on Supermicro motherboards. All my
old hardware was not hand-built, but I had system builders put them together.
So, it seems that at least some time ago, experienced system builders were
using Supermicro motherboards. So, when I pick this up that's where I'll be
looking at.
10:05 p.m.
On 8/7/22 19:37, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users writes:
> On 8/7/22 06:53, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> Tim via users writes:
>>
>>> Loading: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
>>> Brings up: https://esupport.gigabyte.com/Login/Index?ReturnUrl=%2f
>>
>> As an aside, I've written off Gigabyte as damaged goods. Their tech
>> support refuses to give you support if you tell them you're running
>> Linux on their motherboards. Their hardware is MS-Windows only.
>
> Their tech support is blow off tech support. You
> should see the reviews I give them!
>
> I recently found all kinds of issues with
> Windows 11 on one of their motherboards and
> documented it for them with workarounds.
> They refused to even look at it.
>
> Who is your new go to motherboard supplier?
I haven't found one yet. My hardware project was put on hold.
But, looking at my old hardware, that I'm trying to replace: it seems
that with only a few exceptions it's based on Supermicro motherboards.
All my old hardware was not hand-built, but I had system builders put
them together.
So, it seems that at least some time ago, experienced system builders
were using Supermicro motherboards. So, when I pick this up that's where
I'll be looking at.
I used supermicro for a long time. I stopped when I
almost lost my shirt on a project where the motherboard
would not shutdown when it was too cold (45F). Happened
on Windows 10 local install and on a Xfce Fedora Live USB.
10:55 p.m.
On Sun, 2022-08-07 at 14:52 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Who is your new go to motherboard supplier?
My last two PCs were ASRock B250M Pro4 motherboards, they've had CentOS
and Fedora installed on them, and I'd tried Ubuntu live. I can't
complain about them. Relatively inexpensive and exceeded my needs.
Actually, I can think of one fault, just now: I tried doing
their update their own firmware feature while you're within UEFI. One
worked flawlessly, the other never managed to connect. I could never
work out why.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 15:37:28 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
3:38 a.m.
2022-08-06 23:03 UTC+02:00, ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>:
Hi All,
Fedora 36
firefox-102.0-1.fc36.x86_64
This seems to be an issue specific to the
repo's edition of Firefox. Everyone on
the Firefox newsgroup get it to work.
Removing and reinstalling did not help:
https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to
esupport.gigabyte.com. You are attempting to
import a cert with the same issuer/serial
as an existing cert, but that is not the
same cert.
Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
If you click on "Lean more...", you'll end up in a few steps on this
page:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Certificate-contains-the-same-serial...
which *may* help.
4 a.m.
On 8/7/22 01:38, Andras Simon wrote:
2022-08-06 23:03 UTC+02:00, ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>:
> Hi All,
>
> Fedora 36
> firefox-102.0-1.fc36.x86_64
>
> This seems to be an issue specific to the
> repo's edition of Firefox. Everyone on
> the Firefox newsgroup get it to work.
> Removing and reinstalling did not help:
>
> https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
> Secure Connection Failed
>
> An error occurred during a connection to
> esupport.gigabyte.com. You are attempting to
> import a cert with the same issuer/serial
> as an existing cert, but that is not the
> same cert.
>
> Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
If you click on "Lean more...", you'll end up in a few steps on this
page:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Certificate-contains-the-same-serial...
which *may* help.
Any idea how to fix it?
4:19 a.m.
2022-08-07 11:00 UTC+02:00, ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>:
On 8/7/22 01:38, Andras Simon wrote:
> If you click on "Lean more...", you'll end up in a
few steps on this
> page:
>
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Certificate-contains-the-same-serial...
> which *may* help.
Any idea how to fix it?
Follow Mozilla's recommendations. Do a google search for more background.
1:09 a.m.
On 8/7/22 01:38, Andras Simon wrote:
2022-08-06 23:03 UTC+02:00, ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>:
> Hi All,
>
> Fedora 36
> firefox-102.0-1.fc36.x86_64
>
> This seems to be an issue specific to the
> repo's edition of Firefox. Everyone on
> the Firefox newsgroup get it to work.
> Removing and reinstalling did not help:
>
> https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
> Secure Connection Failed
>
> An error occurred during a connection to
> esupport.gigabyte.com. You are attempting to
> import a cert with the same issuer/serial
> as an existing cert, but that is not the
> same cert.
>
> Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
If you click on "Lean more...", you'll end up in a few steps on this
page:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Certificate-contains-the-same-serial...
which *may* help.
The error message that page shows is slightly different. I don't know
if that's because it's an earlier version of the message or this is a
different case. Regardless, the suggested solution is not relevant to
this issue.
6:42 a.m.
2022-08-08 8:09 UTC+02:00, Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net>:
On 8/7/22 01:38, Andras Simon wrote:
> 2022-08-06 23:03 UTC+02:00, ToddAndMargo via users
> <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Fedora 36
>> firefox-102.0-1.fc36.x86_64
>>
>> This seems to be an issue specific to the
>> repo's edition of Firefox. Everyone on
>> the Firefox newsgroup get it to work.
>> Removing and reinstalling did not help:
>>
>> https://esupport.gigabyte.com/
>> Secure Connection Failed
>>
>> An error occurred during a connection to
>> esupport.gigabyte.com. You are attempting to
>> import a cert with the same issuer/serial
>> as an existing cert, but that is not the
>> same cert.
>>
>> Error code: SEC_ERROR_REUSED_ISSUER_AND_SERIAL
>
> If you click on "Lean more...", you'll end up in a few steps on this
> page:
>
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Certificate-contains-the-same-serial...
> which *may* help.
The error message that page shows is slightly different. I don't know
if that's because it's an earlier version of the message or this is a
different case. Regardless, the suggested solution is not relevant to
this issue.
The error code is the same, and, moreover, mozilla sends you to this
page, so I guess every investigation should start there. Of course it
may still turn out to be irrelevant.
1:42 p.m.
On 8/8/22 04:42, Andras Simon wrote:
2022-08-08 8:09 UTC+02:00, Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net>:
> On 8/7/22 01:38, Andras Simon wrote:
>> If you click on "Lean more...", you'll end up in a few steps on
this
>> page:
>>
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Certificate-contains-the-same-serial...
>> which *may* help.
>
> The error message that page shows is slightly different. I don't know
> if that's because it's an earlier version of the message or this is a
> different case. Regardless, the suggested solution is not relevant to
> this issue.
The error code is the same, and, moreover, mozilla sends you to this
page, so I guess every investigation should start there. Of course it
may still turn out to be irrelevant.
Yes, I did start there. And it's the solution listed on that page that
I was saying was not relevant.
6:16 p.m.
On 11/8/22 04:42, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 8/8/22 04:42, Andras Simon wrote:
> 2022-08-08 8:09 UTC+02:00, Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net>:
>> On 8/7/22 01:38, Andras Simon wrote:
>>> If you click on "Lean more...", you'll end up in a few steps on
this
>>> page:
>>>
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Certificate-contains-the-same-serial...
>>>
>>> which *may* help.
>>
>> The error message that page shows is slightly different. I don't know
>> if that's because it's an earlier version of the message or this is a
>> different case. Regardless, the suggested solution is not relevant to
>> this issue.
>
> The error code is the same, and, moreover, mozilla sends you to this
> page, so I guess every investigation should start there. Of course it
> may still turn out to be irrelevant.
Yes, I did start there. And it's the solution listed on that page
that I was saying was not relevant.
I mentioned in an earlier thread that I tried
this site is Firefox
105.0a1 and it worked fine. After doing this I fired up the firefox
version from the repositories and went to the site and it had no issues
either. As also mentioned earlier the issue may be location dependent as
I'm in Australia.
regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
617
days inactive
622
days old
45 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Alexander Dalloz -
Andras Simon -
Barry Scott -
George N. White III -
Jerry James -
Joe Zeff -
Lily White -
old sixpack13 -
Sam Varshavchik -
Samuel Sieb -
Stephen Morris -
Tim -
ToddAndMargo