How to use Surfshark VPN w/ F96-CE r4?

[vtpup]

The usual:
Decide to try VPN. Research available vendors. Choose Surfshark. "Works with any Linux". Pay for subscription. Requires simple download of app. Multiple linux download flavors available. Okay, Choose Ubuntu....... uh oh, it's a snap pack. Been warned against those in Puppys....

Okay then what about Debian? Nope still a snap pack.

Well what about Arch? Snap pack

Okay okay, let's try to run a snap, lessee, it says first download snapd --- okay done.

Then run: snap install surfshark

Error message, natch:

Code: Select all

# snap install surfshark
error: cannot communicate with server: Post "http://localhost/v2/snaps/surfshark": dial unix /run/snapd.socket: connect: no such file or directory

Everybody said it..... snaps no good. Okay okay look at oldforum there's something there about how to use snaps -- referred to Arch ... try .

Code: Select all

# systemctl restart snapd
bash: systemctl: command not found

Yeah well okay, this is Puppy, not Ubuntu, not Debian, not Arch.....

Guys....HELP!
(Computer and OS in sig, below)

[williwaw]

snapd is a deamon. try rebooting then troubleshooting if the deamon is not running

[bigpup]

Do not know what browser you use.

But probably all the mayor ones have this available.

In Firefox you can use the Surfshark add on.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... ent=search

[dimkr]

snap depends on systemd, and Puppy doesn't use systemd.

[vtpup]

@bigpup thanks, that worked on Firefox.

Unfortunately I mainly use Seamonkey, and not available for that. Also Surfshark doesn't work with Roku TV. And it doesn't work with my Xfinity router.

I guess the only solution is to get another router and use bridge mode. Looking into that, or possibly cancelling surfshark under the 30 day money back deal.

[wizard]

@vtpup

Would this work as a free alternate to Surfshark:
viewtopic.php?t=13059

wizard

[williwaw]

@bigpup thanks, that worked on Firefox.

Unfortunately I mainly use Seamonkey, and not available for that. Also Surfshark doesn't work with Roku TV. And it doesn't work with my Xfinity router.

I guess the only solution is to get another router and use bridge mode. Looking into that, or possibly cancelling surfshark under the 30 day money back deal.

you dont have to use the app
https://support.surfshark.com/hc/en-us/ ... nual-setup

[vtpup]

@williwaw and @wizard Thanks, and very interesting both. I'd try both of those, except it would mean setting up all devices for everybody in the house, including my own shameful number of new and not so new computers, with a variety of puppy types. Plus the TV isn't compatible at all.

Since they all use the home network, the simplest solution seems to be just getting a second router which is VPN capable, and bridging that to the Xfinity cable modem (which isn't VPN compatible.

I wouldn't have considered a second router because of the cost, but Surfshark specifically listed as compatible a tiny and inexpensive one: the Mango (GL-MT300N-V2), which was less than $30. I don't know about how fast this will be for us, but we don't have very high speed cable anyway, and we don't game. If it streams video okay, that will be good enough. Another possibility would be to run most devices off of the Mango, and if the need for speed is greater for my main computer, try the manual Surfshark setup for that laptop only as williwaw suggested, direct through the xfinity modem..

I'll post back how this works out. If it's too slow, or causes other problems, maybe I'll drop Surfshark and go with wizard's OpenVPN suggestion. I dunno, all this stuff is new to me.

[vtpup]

Interesting review of the Mango VPN router:

https://hagensieker.com/2023/09/14/gl-i ... er-review/

[williwaw]

VT,

I use a gl-inet router, it works better than expected and seems to have a lot of configurable options.
not the mango, but an older one that takes a sim card for wireless internet service.
some of their products are for use in motel rooms, and if you need to broadcast to an entire house you might review the power specs of the different models

OpenVpn is client software that should be supported by all the vpn providers
Wireguard , another client software is well supported by most providers also, and can be simpler......

but Wizards OpenVpn scripts are tuned to puppy!

[vtpup]

The Mango is kind of cute, too. Looks like a block of cheese.

Could be a drawback this time of year though.

[vtpup]

Received the Mango VPN Router and spent a lot of time trying to configure it. Eventually did get it going for both OpenVPN and Wireguard. Wireguard was the fastest connection through it at about 13 Mbps OpneVPN was about 6 Mbps. My cable modem is rated 50 Mbps, and actually measure 60, so these VPN speeds are really poor.

Worse however was the Wifi hardware in the router which seemed to have big intermittent problems. Setting the router up initially was almost impossible because admin screens wouldn't load completely before stalling during wifi setup sessions. I eventually found that I could get the work done by making sure NOT to plug in the Modem's WAN cable, and to use a LAN cable to one of my older laptops to do the programming. That LT happened to have a LAN port -- most don't these days. Wan traffic seemed to overtax the router with distractions, while in the admin panel. My guess is, it just has an underpowered processor and probably the CPU is trying to do everything.

Real world tests after configuring seemed to favor streaming video for some reason, compared to poor performance just browser surfing, and particularly poor performance for email. The opposite of what I would have expected.

So back into the box it went for a return to Amazon tomorrow.

I'm going to try my luck with this router's slightly bigger, and considerably more powerful brother the GL.iNet GL-SFT1200, for 5 bucks more. Maybe I'll get lucky this time. Looks like QC for these brand routers is something of a crapshoot, judging by some of the 1 star reviews on Amazon. But worth a try I figure at the price. I really don't think VPN is worth enough to me to want to spring for much more than 50 bucks on hardware.

I'll report back how this one goes, when I get it........

[williwaw]

Real world tests after configuring seemed to favor streaming video for some reason, compared to poor performance just browser surfing, and particularly poor performance for email. The opposite of what I would have expected.

wouldn't connection speed be more to do with comunication between the servers and surfshark?
I would imagine browsing involves a lot of handshakes vs streaming being, well, a mostly uninterupted stream.

Email seems no different from browsing, except if you were previously being served your email directly from your ISP without many hops, whereas now your email is being delivered thru an intermediate connection.

Maybe I dont well understand how vpns actually work, but would one expect slower connections if one were to choose a vpn off the main trunk somewhere on the other side of the world?

whatching with interest. Do you prefer wireguard or OpenVpn ?

[Trapster]

I have used these guys in the past with good luck.
Router came pre-installed with DD-WRT and they will also set up a router with your vpn credentials for an extra fee.

https://www.flashrouters.com

[vtpup]

Real world tests after configuring seemed to favor streaming video for some reason, compared to poor performance just browser surfing, and particularly poor performance for email. The opposite of what I would have expected.

wouldn't connection speed be more to do with comunication between the servers and surfshark?

whatching with interest. Do you prefer wireguard or OpenVpn ?

Hi @williwaw, I used https://www.speedtest.net for speed checks for the following.

I had Surfshark installed in Firefox as an add-on, as well as having installed on the new Mango router. I was therefore able to compare the speed when each was enabled. Separately, of course, I did not run both VPN methods at the same time.

I get 60 Mbps download speed with Surfshark on Firefox add-on alone. Running straight with no VPN, I also got ~60+ Mbps using Firefox.
I got 13 Mbps for the same through the Mango router alone using WireGuard. I got about half that, using the router with OpenVPN.

Worse, the router was just generally flakey with drop-outs and delays -- as a guess these were either hardware processing overload or wifi connection related.

I can't say what the speed difference is between OpenVPn and Wireguard in the Firefox add-on, since there's no information on which is in use at any particular time.
For the router, Wireguard was twice as fast as OpenVPN.

[vtpup]

Just wanted to follow up that the new replacement router (for $5 more) works great. There is still a speed loss for VPN, but it's still fast enough for all normal uses.

The new router is called "Opal", a GL.iNet GL-SFT1200. I'm getting about 30Mbps download now via Wireguard versus the 13Mbps on the earlier "Mango" router. And that's as a Wifi repeater, not yet hooked up via hard wire and running the cable modem in bridge mode. There's a some chance that would be faster. However, I would then have only a dedicated VPN network at home, and I'm starting to see the advantage of having both a VPN and non-VPN network available simultaneously. There are some things that just don't work via VPN.

Speeds: as I said the new Opal router gives me 30 Mbps on Wifi-5. It also operates on 2.4
Without VPN I get around 60 Mbps. But 30 is good enough for all normal purposes here. Also the admin interface was trouble-free and fast compared to all the difficulties I experienced with the Mango. The size is still remarkably compact. I'm getting 10 Mbps upload.

I like this new inexpensive portable VPN router! A good adjunct to the home network. And it travels, too for secure connections in public hotspots. Runs on USB power, and fits in a coat pocket.