[ SOLVED ] Canoscan N650U made obsolete by LL3.4?

[Peejay]

@torreydale

@Peejay,

If UEFI was introduced to your computer, how did you get Linux Lite to run on it?  The default installation of Linux Lite doesn't work with UEFI.  Lastly, if this is the end of your thread, please mark it as solved.  For help with that, review this https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/introductions/forum-posting-guidelines/

Sorry to be slow picking your query up. Not really on-topic here so apologies if undesirable. I had no particular difficulty installing Linux Lite but I had previously installed another Ubuntu derivative, Peppermint 6, that did support UEFI installation so the Ubuntu shim was in place and set with the firmware as accepted, so perhaps that made the difference. From recollection I simply did a multi-boot install with Secure Boot off and it went in pretty easily, alongside Pep6 and Win10, both of which I should really remove now because I haven't used either for months. Very impressed with Linux Lite.

[geaves]

I've had my N650U for a long time and it's always been perfectly OK for me. I've never got it to work in Ubuntu, though, and a lot of derivatives, but it has worked in Linux Mint and in Linux Lite, which I adopted at 3.2. Now I'm up-to-date with 3.4 I'm back to googling for solutions that actually work.
Checking at http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html gave this info:
Model                      Interface    USB id    Status    Comment    Backend             Manpage
CanoScan N650U/N656U    USB    0x04a9/0x2206    Complete                  plustek (0.52)    sane-plustek
Using sudo sane-find-scanner produced this:
>could not fetch string descriptor: Input/output error
>could not fetch string descriptor: Input/output error
>found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a9, product=0x2206) at libusb:003:002
and sudo scanimage -L gave me "No scanners were identified."
I've checked the presence of the stated backend and all seems to  be in order and lsusb identifies the device too, but no connection can be made to it, it seems.
I've also checked that the scanner does still work and on an older laptop it still does, so not a hardware issue.

If the worst comes to the worst I can revert to 3.2 - but I really like the upgrade - or I could have a go at a VB version of a suitable distro, but both seem rather heavy going given that the scanner worked fine before I did the upgrade.

I've seen enough of scanner Q&As to know that the answer is rarely clearcut or universally applicable but I would be very grateful for any suggestions. Well, not quite ANY perhaps!

I live in hope!

I've just read through the thread as I was searching for a print solution in printers and scanners....however, I have the exact same scanner, and I've just plugged it into another distro I use and it works I've not tried this on LL as my version is a clean 3.4, the application is on Launchpad https://launchpad.net/simple-scan no idea if this would work but might be worth a try.

Another option might be to remove sane; apt remove --purge then apt autoremove then reinstall it.

[torreydale]

@Peejay,

If UEFI was introduced to your computer, how did you get Linux Lite to run on it?  The default installation of Linux Lite doesn't work with UEFI.  Lastly, if this is the end of your thread, please mark it as solved.  For help with that, review this https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/introductions/forum-posting-guidelines/

[Jerry]

Good, another reason for me to detest UEFI

[Peejay]

@Jerry Thank you for the suggestions. I did try Xsane once but found it pretty difficult to understand - but if it worked the effort would be worthwhile. With the paid programs I'd have to be sure they would work where the FOSS ones don't but I don't have a big scanning requirement (probably why my scanner has lasted so long!).

But ... I've been doing some tests and I think I've got my answer, though it's not what I really want.  I tried out the various Live USBs and CDs I have on the different computers I have and I found that:
> no distro could deliver a scan from my scanner on the PCs that UEFI
> LinuxLite 3.4 (and most, but not all, Ubuntu derivatives) could deliver a scan on any PC which had BIOS.

So, to answer my original question : No, it's not Linux Lite 3.4 that's making my scanner obsolete. It looks as though it's a change to computer design that occurred when UEFI was introduced, or it may be UEFI itself.

In fact Linux Lite 3.2 was the only distro I tested that delivered a scan on my Acer UEFI laptop, so no complaints at all about Linux Lite.
It looks as though the sensible way forward for my scanner is to reserve an older machine for it - and the good news about that is that Linux Lite 3.4 will be able to power it.

I know I've put in some long posts and I do thank you, Jerry, for your patience with the and for your readiness to pur forward potential solutions. I hope I haven't taken up too much of your time but for me it has been worth it, so thank you once again. 

[Jerry]

You could try installing Xsane. If you do a lot of scanning and you really need it, you could also look into paid options like Vuescan or Turboprint.

[Peejay]

@Jerry I've been readying a Dell Studio with LinuxLite for a friend (ex-Vista) and I put a 3.4 new install on it.
I thought to try my scanner on it and lo and behold, it works!
So all I have to work out now is:
 is it the upgrade process? OR
is it the laptop?
Further suggestions, methodologies welcomed!
Anyway I thought you might like to have some better news even if I can't mark the issue as Solved yet!

[Peejay]

@Jerry I found when I did the 'sudo apt' you suggested I had indeed not installed the whole package - I'd omitted  the dbg and dev files believing they were not likely to affect day-to-day operations. Anyway I opted to install them but unfortunately it's made no difference to the availability of the scanner to the system.
I took a copy of the terminal dialogue and attach it to this post.

I did indeed have the scanner working with LL3.2. I was quite surprised because I've never had any joy with it on Ubuntu though several years ago Linux Mint did connect with it (no later than LM13 I don't think). In recent times my only source of joy with it prior to LL3.2 has been MX14 and 15, which is Debian based. In MX16, which I haven't yet installed they have changed from SimpleScan to Scan2pdf and on the Live version at least that operated the scanner.

Prior to LinuxLite I was trying PeppermintOS but it didn't really suit me whereas LinuxLite sits very well with the way I like to work. So I was really pleased to find LL3.2 also operated the scanner - and now just as disappointed that 3.4 seems to have gone the way of other Ubuntu-based distros so far as my scanner is concerned.

Throughout though it's never been clear why operation should be problematic because it's clearly supported by SANE and everyone appears to include the full SANE system in their distros. The scanner itself does still work - MX14  still doing its stuff.

I'm beginning to wonder whether whether some recent kernel changes might have affected the detection system, but that's just a guess because although I'm quite an experienced user I'm no techie. Perhaps the terminal dialogue will offer some clues to someone better qualified than I to assess it.

Thank you once again for your trouble. And just in case I have given a contrary opinion through this mishap with the scanner, may i say how impressed I am with the way Linux Lite is put together and the attention you give to practical working for ordinary users like myself. I think it's quietly exceptional in that regard.

[Jerry]

Did you say this worked in 3.2?

Sent from my Mobile phone using Tapatalk

[Jerry]

You could try: sudo apt install libsane*

Sent from my Mobile phone using Tapatalk

[Peejay]

Oh yes, indeed - sadly! Sorry, I should have made that clear.
I also restored the original plustek.conf file (I'd previously edited it to show the manufacturer and model id). The lsusb output still shows the correct Make and Model though (but I have kept a copy of my amended file in my home directory so perhaps it is getting these details from there?).
Nothing has changed with the real connectability of the device and software though.
I'm a bit confused how the SANE webpage can say the scanner is completely supported when none of these steps using SANE software seem to make a difference. Thank you, though, for your willing help - much appreciated.

[Jerry]

I presume you rebooted?

Sent from my MI MAX using Tapatalk

[Peejay]

Thank you Jerry. I have now installed libsane-extras but am still getting the 'No scanners detected' message from SimpleScan. Bad news I'm afraid.

[Jerry]

Try installing the package: libsane-extras.

Sent from my MI MAX using Tapatalk

[Peejay]

I've had my N650U for a long time and it's always been perfectly OK for me. I've never got it to work in Ubuntu, though, and a lot of derivatives, but it has worked in Linux Mint and in Linux Lite, which I adopted at 3.2. Now I'm up-to-date with 3.4 I'm back to googling for solutions that actually work.
Checking at http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html gave this info:
Model                      Interface    USB id    Status    Comment    Backend             Manpage
CanoScan N650U/N656U    USB    0x04a9/0x2206    Complete                  plustek (0.52)    sane-plustek
Using sudo sane-find-scanner produced this:
>could not fetch string descriptor: Input/output error
>could not fetch string descriptor: Input/output error
>found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a9, product=0x2206) at libusb:003:002
and sudo scanimage -L gave me "No scanners were identified."
I've checked the presence of the stated backend and all seems to  be in order and lsusb identifies the device too, but no connection can be made to it, it seems.
I've also checked that the scanner does still work and on an older laptop it still does, so not a hardware issue.

If the worst comes to the worst I can revert to 3.2 - but I really like the upgrade - or I could have a go at a VB version of a suitable distro, but both seem rather heavy going given that the scanner worked fine before I did the upgrade.

I've seen enough of scanner Q&As to know that the answer is rarely clearcut or universally applicable but I would be very grateful for any suggestions. Well, not quite ANY perhaps!

I live in hope!