Usb 3.0 hw not shown up under lsusb
- #Usb 3.0 hw not shown up under lsusb update
- #Usb 3.0 hw not shown up under lsusb upgrade
- #Usb 3.0 hw not shown up under lsusb software
There are three models, Arctis 3, 5 and 7. Issues related to the Fedora rpm package can be reported on github.
#Usb 3.0 hw not shown up under lsusb update
Checksum also differs on the deb package, causing at least at some point apt to complain about wrong checksum (somebody forgot to update the repodata when pushing out the new package?).Ĭuriously the July and September versions have the same file size, meaning that the binary maybe only has been recompiled, possibly with different settings. The package still has the same 2.2.4 version and there is no note in the change log. But the package downloaded in August had a game binary with modification date and when downloaded in September, the game binary has a modification date of. The 2.2.4 version was released April 03 2017. This is what Jagex is doing with their RuneScape NXT client. But not updating version numbers is just, well.
#Usb 3.0 hw not shown up under lsusb software
The only thing I could think of that would justify doing this, is if the software installation package has some minor issue (or completely broken thus preventing any installation). If the update isn't worth pushing out to all users, why not just wait with pushing out the change until next official release? I don't know, but it feels like hiding something.
#Usb 3.0 hw not shown up under lsusb upgrade
Why would you just silently replace a released software package with an updated one without changing version? In most cases this means that users downloading the package for the first time will get the latest package, but users that have downloaded the software previously will receive no notification about an update (assuming that there is an upgrade mechanism such as apt, yum or dnf, or in the Windows world maybe a custom software updater). When publishing software, it is custom to update software version when releasing an update. I think it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make specifications and adjustments available to the user of the meter (at least as long as the instrument is built the way that it is possible to adjust). Hopefully nobody minds even if I post the schematic. The schematic for this meter is available on the Internet. I later found out that this meter is a rebranded Mastech MY-64. My references when adjusting was an AD584 voltage reference chip, Brymen BM867s DVM, GW Instek 8251A bench meter and Siglent SDG810 signal generator. The accuracy depends on the accuracy of reference resistors R5 to R10 that are also voltage dividers (which later became apparent from a schematic, see below). Resistance is quite OK and you can't adjust it on this meter. The temperature functionality must be broken somehow, but I didn't investigate more.Ĭapacitance (VR3) was a tiny bit off, but I was able to adjust it. The same K-thermocouple showed correctly on another meter. It shows 12 ☌ at 23 ☌ with the trimmer turned all the way. I wasn't able to adjust the temperature (VR4) any higher. You have to select which one is more important. DC voltage became quite OK.ĪC voltage (VR2) is not possible to adjust so that both low and high voltage ranges are correct. I was able to do it by holding the display in place with my hand and testing between adjusting the trimmer.