Linux-Networking Digest #661, Volume #10 Sun, 28 Mar 99 16:13:58 EST
Contents:
redhat 5.2 mail (Ming-Ho Su)
Re: Can I use same modem to 'diald' out and to 'pap' answer? (Bill Unruh)
Re: Question: Is there a free alternetive for TZO and DYNIP? ("Eugene")
Re: samba + migration win95 -> win98 ("Eugene")
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (Greg Weeks)
Re: Routing (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Netatalk setup in RH 5.2 (Ron Allen)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... ("Alexander I. Butenko")
Re: Win98 can't find Samba server (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: Two NIC's in 1 machine for double bandwidth? (Bio Hazard)
Re: Linux as NT server ("Eugene")
Re: PPP connections problem with RedHat 5.2 (Bill Unruh)
Re: Help me spend $2,000 on a new Linux-based computer ("Cameron Spitzer")
Intel 28595TX pcmcia Net based chip ("Lior Langer")
Re: Different IP in one network (Tomasz Korycki)
Mrtg reports almost exact amount of incoming and outgoing bytes per second on
CMU-SNMP equipped linuxbox ("Walter Tak")
Re: Samba 19.18.p10 &Suse Linux 6.0 & NT4.0 Workstation... (Eduard Bloch)
Mounting an NT drive? (Markus Moellers)
Re: How to compile Kernel 2.2.2 with redhat 5.2??? (Eugene VonNiederhausern)
Re: pppd, PAP, and my blood pressure
Re: pppd - demand dialing question (Dave)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ming-Ho Su)
Subject: redhat 5.2 mail
Date: 28 Mar 1999 18:15:42 GMT
hello.
I am new on redhat 5.2 . who can tell me how I can
send mail from my redhat 5.2 box to other people ( ppp connection)
I tried it before. but [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't work.
or any resource I can read
thanks in advanced
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Can I use same modem to 'diald' out and to 'pap' answer?
Date: 28 Mar 1999 19:55:36 GMT
In <7djt09$sd5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Dean M. Weiten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've read articles advising me to purchase a second modem and put in a
>second telephone line to my LINUX machine (RedHat 5.1), if I want to both do
>'diald' out to the Internet and auto-answer for dial-in. I don't really
>want to purchase another modem, or put in another phone line. Is there a
>way to share the modem for these duties?
I don;t know about diald, but what you want is what I do all the time.
I connect out by using a ppp script (see
axion.physics.ubc.ca/ppp-linux.html for details) and have mgetty sitting
there ready to answer when I am not using it. I have it on ringback, so
that normal phone calls can also use the line without getting the modem
screaming at you.
The only important thing is to make sure that you run pppd with the lock
option. Otherwise mgetty goes mad seeing the phone
in use and feeling it should be handling it.
Now, having both diald and mgetty trying to manage the phone can make
things difficult. If diald can be set up to put in a lock file each time
it makes a connection, then it should be fine, and mgetty and diald
should be able to share. (of course one difficulty would come if the
route is left set up to route things through diald and it then tried
tomake the connection when it is already made through mgetty.)
Ie, pppd + mgetty is easy. diald+mgetty I am not sure about.
>The idea here is, when I'm home, I want to use the modem for the Internet
>access (and it works fine already!). When I'm at work, I'd like access to
>my home network through a dial-in line, bringing up PPP, hopefully, so I can
>have forwarding access to my home network.
>Thanks,
>Dean Weiten.
------------------------------
From: "Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question: Is there a free alternetive for TZO and DYNIP?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:02:01 GMT
www.dhs.org
www.ez-ip.net
I registered a host name with both:
www.happypenguin.dhs.org
www.happypenguin.ez-ip.net
--
"Ein Folk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft's slogan
Jeroen van Reenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> See header.
>
> Jeroen van Reenen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> remove the nospam to mail me
>
------------------------------
From: "Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.networking.win95,linux.samba
Subject: Re: samba + migration win95 -> win98
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:06:12 GMT
I used 95 and when I switched to 98 I didn't have any problems. I didn't use
logon scripts or stuff like that but I don't think there would be any
problem with that.
Yeah, I used to have samba 1.9.8p10 on the Linux box and just recently
upgraded to 2.0.something -- still no issues.
--
"Ein Folk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft's slogan
Andreas K. Hüttel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi everybody,
>
> we are currently running a small network with a samba (2.0) server and
> a few Windows _95_ workstations. The server stores roaming profiles for
> all users and provides authentification (logon scripts, policy file,...)
>
> Now, we are planning to add a Windows _98_ workstation.
>
> Q1: Will Win95 and Win98 be able to work with the same user profiles,
> policy file etc?
> If not, what can I do?
>
> Q2: In general, are there any problems using samba with Win98 clients
> (compared to Win95 which works fine)?
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice,
> Andreas
>
> PS. Please CC to my email address!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andreas K. Huettel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 81627 Muenchen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Germany http://www.lrz.de/~huettel/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Weeks)
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,micorosft.public.outlook
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:39:16 -0600
In article <#vpVp$Ue#GA.260@cppssbbsa03>,
"Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what advices do you expect in the NT newsgroup form the NT
> professionals?
In case you didn't notice, this is being cross posted to a number of
groups. I'm reading it in comp.os.linux.networking.
A couple of years ago I was looking for a file server for home and
chose Linux almost entirely on price. I had hardware that would run
Linux. I would need to buy hardware to run NT 3.51 on. (mostly memory)
I could buy the Linux for $30. It was $300 + licenses for NT. I almost
went with Novel though as they would sell be the server software + 2
client licenses for $50.
Greg Weeks
--
http://durendal.tzo.com/greg/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: Routing
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:57:37 GMT
Web-Hotel Danmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>Hi Michael,
>The IP of the Firewall (THIS MACHINE) is 195.97.150.186
>The IP of the Router is 195.97.150.177
>A simple configuration would be:
>-------
>eth0 - connected to a network
>eth1 - connected to another network
>eth2 - connected to a third network
>whenever there is traffic on eth0 for IP 195.97.150.180 I want it to be routed
>to eth1
route add -host 195.97.150.180 eth1
>whenever there is traffic on eth0 for IP 195.97.150.190 I want it to be routed
>to eth1
route add -host 195.97.150.190 eth1
>whenever there is traffic on eth0 for IP 195.97.150.188 I want it to be routed
>to eth2
route add -host 195.97.150.188 eth2
>whenever there is traffic on eth0 for IP 195.97.150.189 I want it to be routed
>to eth2
route add -host 195.97.150.189 eth2
>whenever there is traffic on eth1 or eth2 for any other IP than I specified
>above, I want it routed to eth0
route add default eth0
>------
>Now the way I would do this (only theory, I've never done this before)...
>would be:
>I make a script like below, and when I execute it, it will work!
>---------------
>#!/bin/sh
># Set Basics
>/sbin/ifconfig eth0 195.97.150.186 netmask 255.255.255.240 broadcast
>195.97.150.191
>/sbin/ifconfig eth1 195.97.150.186 netmask 255.255.255.240 broadcast
>195.97.150.191
>/sbin/ifconfig eth2 195.97.150.186 netmask 255.255.255.240 broadcast
>195.97.150.191
[...]
That's what I suspected from your first posting.
This kind of setup is impossible - each interface does have to get a
unique/separate IP address, since IP addresses are used to define
interfaces, not host systems. What you need is Ip forwarding and
then give the firewall's IP address (...186) to the eth0 interface.
All other interfaces should be using a 192.168.x.y address (see RFC 1597)
instead of the (invalid) method of giving the same IP address to all
3 NICs installed.
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,micorosft.public.outlook
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Mar 1999 15:06:50 -0500
"Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ANyway I greatly doubt that Linux will be easier to use than NT
> Server. I'm sure that NT Server will be a ideal use for a small home
> network, becaus eit's very easy to configure comparable to Linux and
> supports most network clients better.
since we're talking a server OS, don't we want to support network
*servers* better and not clients? who cares if netscape looks better
on NT than linux. what we really want to know is who can dole out
webpages better, both faster and more reliably.
and once we are talking service, NT is going to lose hard.
apache runs better on linux than NT. apache blows MS's offering
(what's it called, IIS?) away in speed, price and marketshare. samba
runs better on linux than NT can do it's own filesharing protocol.
NFS is better in linux than on NT. ftp servers (ftpd) are easier and
work better in linux than NT. MTAs like qmail blow the crap out of
exchange. the list just goes on and on.
a final note, what about uptimes? linux is *much* more robust than NT
(unless you consider BSOD to be a debug mode and not downtime).
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Allen)
Subject: Re: Netatalk setup in RH 5.2
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 17:22:06 GMT
"Michael T. Cavanagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi, all:
>
>I am investigating using Netatalk to set up a file server for a
--snip--
>
>I notice an appletalk message when the kernel boots. Does this mean I
>don't have to recompile the kernel? Can netatalk be run as a module
>(since its traffic will be light?)
>
>Any help would be appreciated. The Taxpayers (and Jesse Ventura) thank
I did the same for my small network using 5.2. I just downloaded the
netatalk RPM from the RedHat contrib ftp site and installed. My only
required change was to add a line with
ifconfig eth0 allmulti
to my /etc/rc.d/init.d/atalk file before the appletalk services
startup. This was required to get my particular ethernet card to
multicast all protocols. Other than that I just set up the default
configuration files and started the service with the old-fashioned
appletalk serving. I didn't use the new IP patches (only because I
didn't want to spend the time on that right now).
Ron Allen
------------------------------
From: "Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:13:52 +0300
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,micorosft.public.outlook
Well,, I'd beter think that there is a Server for the client, not
vice-versa. And one more - the question was about the OS for the home. MOst
hom eusers can't even properly configure Win98, so the most correct answer
about the Server was not linux but WIndows NT. Anyway I do not wasn to
continue this flame as most of this group members seem to gain nothing from
it.
--
Please reply to the newsgroup!
Best Regards,
Alexander I. Butenko
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft Developer Network Certified Member
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ANyway I greatly doubt that Linux will be easier to use than NT
> > Server. I'm sure that NT Server will be a ideal use for a small home
> > network, becaus eit's very easy to configure comparable to Linux and
> > supports most network clients better.
>
> since we're talking a server OS, don't we want to support network
> *servers* better and not clients? who cares if netscape looks better
> on NT than linux. what we really want to know is who can dole out
> webpages better, both faster and more reliably.
>
> and once we are talking service, NT is going to lose hard.
>
> apache runs better on linux than NT. apache blows MS's offering
> (what's it called, IIS?) away in speed, price and marketshare. samba
> runs better on linux than NT can do it's own filesharing protocol.
> NFS is better in linux than on NT. ftp servers (ftpd) are easier and
> work better in linux than NT. MTAs like qmail blow the crap out of
> exchange. the list just goes on and on.
>
> a final note, what about uptimes? linux is *much* more robust than NT
> (unless you consider BSOD to be a debug mode and not downtime).
>
> --
> J o h a n K u l l s t a m
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: Win98 can't find Samba server
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:42:41 GMT
Chris Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>If someone could be of any assistance I would be very appreciative. I am
>trying to run Samba 2.0.2 on Redhat 5.2 (called neptune) and connect my
>Win98 box (called Donkey) to it. I can ping each computer from the other
>one. I can connect to each computer use the NetBIOS name and using the IP
>address. The workgroup and domain names are the same on both computers. The
>only problem is that Network Neighborhood does not show the Linux box. Here
>are my configs:
>
>Win98;
>TCP/IP settings
>Enable WINS resolution=192.168.1.5;
^^^^^^^^^^^
What machine is that ?
>File and Printer Sharing - Browse Master=automatic;
>
># Samba config file created using SWAT
> # from Donkey (192.168.1.3)
> # Date: 1999/03/28 02:31:49
>
> # Global parameters
> workgroup = CARTER
> netbios name = NEPTUNE
> server string = Samba SMB Server
> interfaces = 192.168.1.3/255.255.255.0
^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
Impossible setup. Either the SAMBA server with 192.168.1.3
is the WINS server, or the SAMBA box may use a different machine
as a WINS server, but not both . If your SAMBA box is 192.168.1.3,
then the Win98 machine must be configured to use 192.168.1.3 as
the WINS server's IP address. And if 192.168.1.5 for some reason
is another interface on the SAMBA box, you'll have to add it in the
interfaces= ..
section of the smb.conf file.
Additionally, the hosts allow = ... section does have to contain
the IP address of all hosts that are contatcing the WINS server.
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bio Hazard)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking
Subject: Re: Two NIC's in 1 machine for double bandwidth?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:00:05 GMT
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:42:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John R.
Campbell) wrote:
> You *can* boost the *aggregate* bandwidth of the network but
> you cannot boost the bandwidth of a particular task (session)
> by doing this (although, with multiple web server processes you
> can subdivide the bandwidth and get bigger numbers). If you're
> doing simple FTP transfers, no, only one of the cards'll be
> utilized.
There must be a way. I mean, I can hook up two 56K modems to two
phone lines, and do multiplexing on the Internet to get double the
bandwidth (sometimes called "Shotgun" technology). There must be a
way to do something similar with two 100Base-T network cards in each
machine. Let me know if anyone knows if this is possible.
___
biohazard(at)email(period)com
------------------------------
From: "Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as NT server
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:00:18 GMT
check out samba
www.samba.org
--
"Ein Folk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft's slogan
Mogul 55 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> i want linux to act as an NT server would. The clients are running Win
98.
> The big thing is i want the linux box to validate the users that are on
the Win
> 98 PCs..
> Some one please help
>
> Thanks in advance
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: PPP connections problem with RedHat 5.2
Date: 28 Mar 1999 20:01:35 GMT
In <7dlb6l$kih$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jimmy Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I found my problem is much more about the pppd. Since I found that I can
>type the pppd after quit from the minicom without resetting, however, I
>cannot found the ppp0 by using the ifconfig command. That means ppp0 NEVER
>exist in the Linux box from my past experience.
If youwould rather not have to use minicom first, then use something
like the suggestions in
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/ppp-linux.html
That way you may be able to figure out what is going wrong as well.
But as a first clue, if youtype
/usr/sbin/pppd
(just that) to the command line, do you get about 10 sec worth of junk
on the screen, an error message or what.
(By the way, why did you decide to go to the 2.2.x kernel anyway. If it
is that you like problems and solving them then fine. But it seems to me
an exercise in masochism is that is not your desire).
------------------------------
From: "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Help me spend $2,000 on a new Linux-based computer
Date: 28 Mar 1999 17:20:07 GMT
In article <StjL2.8002$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here is my dream machine:
>
>Celeron 366 overclocked to 550
>128 Mb SDRAM (PC-100) (one piece)
This machine will be unreliable at best. "Overclocking" is for machines
that contain no important data and do no important work,
and where you don't mind installing from scratch all the time.
There is an "Overclocking FAQ" floating around the 'net, with my name
in it. It's a FORGERY. I said approximately the opposite of what
the "FAQ" says, and the FAQ's author reversed the sense of what I said
because he didn't agree with me about the issue.
Then I told him he couldn't use my name, and he ignored that.
I think you can assume the whole thing is a crock, made up by some
crooked PC builder who wanted to blur the issue so he could sell
processors that were slower than he claimed.
In other words, anyone who tries to sell you on "overclocking" is
probably a scammer.
There have been times when semiconductor manufacturers mark parts
as slower than they can be guaranteed to be, to fill orders for the slower
parts, or to protect the price premium on the faster ones.
It's the exception, not the rule. Rumors of a vast conspiracy to
overprice processors and memory by concealing their true reliable
speed are hogwash.
Cameron
------------------------------
From: "Lior Langer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Intel 28595TX pcmcia Net based chip
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 21:22:25 +0200
Hello
I am trying to use Olicom OC2220 pcmcia network card.
I was informed by the vompany that it uses Intel's 28595TX chip.
Does anybody knows what other pcmcia network cards uses
the same chip?
I could not find that information t Intel web site
Thanks
--
Lior Langer
work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24h: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mac: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cell: 972-53-644237
------------------------------
From: Tomasz Korycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,hk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Different IP in one network
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:19:18 -0500
Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
> Jack Cheng wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a network system using RH5.2 and running fine. The IP is 192.168.16.1
> >
> > Because I want ot learn more about linux, so I hooked up one more linux box
> > in my existing lan (of course running as a SERVER and IP is 192.168.18.1),
> > so i can change anything in the new linux box for my testing.
> >
> > I cannot ping the 192.168.16.1 from the new linux box (192.168.18.1), is
> > possible set two different IP in one lan system?
> >
> > Best Regard
> > Jack Cheng
>
> If you have defined your 'subnet mask' to be more than 16bits (i.e.
> 255.255.0.0),
> you'll have to stick a router between the two Linux boxes. You see, they
> look to
> be on different subnets, and would ignore each other if they were.
>
> Rather than add more hardware to your lan, either
> a) change the IP address on the new Linux box to a 192.168.16.x address
> (like your first Linux box has), or
> b) change the subnet masks on *both* Linux boxes to be 255.255.0.0
> (in order to put both machines on the same subnet).
>
Well, seeing he runs as A.B.16.x and A.B.18.x, a netmask of /20 should
have them both on the same subnet. For both of them, the network they're
on should be 192.168.16.0, netmask 255.255.240.0 or 0xFFFFF000. One
_could_ make it more flexible by going with /19, for network
192.168.0.0, netmask 192.168.224.0 or 0xFFFFE000
> Of course, option (b) above may have detrimental effects on your
> existing LAN.
>
> --
>
> Lew Pitcher | If everyone has an angle, why
> JOAT-in-training | are most of them so obtuse?
------------------------------
From: "Walter Tak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mrtg reports almost exact amount of incoming and outgoing bytes per second on
CMU-SNMP equipped linuxbox
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:20:30 +0100
Reply-To: "Walter Tak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
I'm using MRTG on a Linux box to make a graph of my ISDN
dialup link using CMU-SNMP which is running on the
very same machine.
The graphs shows the bytes/sec for the ISDN link.
However the outgoing bytes/sec is way too high,
it's most of the times 90% of the incoming bytes/sec.
Since I'm just browsing or downloading and not
uploading to the net the outgoing cps should be low,
almost near 0 cps.
Anyone ?
--
Regards,
Walter Tak
==========
Tentacle Interactive
Internet-based IT solutions
http://www.tentacle.nl
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eduard Bloch)
Crossposted-To:
de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc,fido.ger.linux,ger.pc.linux,maus.computer.linux
Subject: Re: Samba 19.18.p10 &Suse Linux 6.0 & NT4.0 Workstation...
Date: 28 Mar 1999 18:45:44 GMT
Am Fri, 26 Mar 1999 05:05:26 +0100 schrieb Karl-Heinz Lintz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in Karl-Heinz Lintz:
>Hallo Users!
>Eure Tips waren sehr hilfreich in Bezug auf das Freigabe-Problem mit Samba +
>Linux OS.
hm, du hast einen deutschen Namen, deutsche E-Mail-Adresse, aber wieso
schreibst du in einer deutschsprachigen NG auf englisch?
Eddie.
--
=========================================
Eduard Bloch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /* http://www.inka.de/~zombie/eb */
Zombie_ auf #linux.de, #inka.de
The alarm clock that is louder than God's own belongs to the roommate with
the earliest class.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Moellers)
Subject: Mounting an NT drive?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:38:03 +0200
Hi folks,
so here is another question of a newbie :)
Is it possible to mount a Windows NT-Drive (or NT-Directory) with Suse Linux
6.0? Maybe in cunjunction with samba?
Thanks for your help
Markus
Germany
------------------------------
From: Eugene VonNiederhausern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: How to compile Kernel 2.2.2 with redhat 5.2???
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:01:42 -0600
Aaron Saikovski wrote:
> Please Help!!
> I have followed the how-to's to the letter, I have used the Linus
> pocketbook.
> I cannot get the 2.2.2 kernel to work correctly under RedHat 5.2.
>
> I compiled the kernel, removed static links to linux, I have made the
> modules, made the modules_install.
> I have moved the zImage to /boot.
> When I reboot and try to boot the new kernel, it causes a total system
> reboot..
> In the /boot directory there is still initrd etc files...
>
> Is there an updated version of the kernel how-to that focuses primarily on
> redhat5.2 and the latest kernel build?
> I have followed the how-to to the letter and it doesn't workj with redhat
> 5.2
> Please help!!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Aaron
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are some redhat updates for kernel 2..2.x (init script, and some
others). I had troubles getting kernel 2.2.0 to work until I made those
updates.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: pppd, PAP, and my blood pressure
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:25:00 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jesse Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been working on this off and on for about a month and it's starting to
> bug me. My ISP uses PAP for dialup authentication and I've been trying to
> get connected under Redhat 5.2 (2.0.36 kernel, pppd is 2.3.5). After
> researching a bit on the web I downloaded the pppsetup script and ran it but
> now pppd/chat won't even communicate with my modem. It was dialing and
> connecting and then dropping the connection before. In /etc/ppp/options
> I've tried setting the modem to /dev/cua1, /dev/modem, and of course what
> the pppsetup script set it to. The modem is an external Supra 14.4LC
> Faxmodem connected to COM2 (verified, it works in windoze98). Here's what
> I'm getting in /var/log/messages:
>
> localhost kernel: CSLIP: code copyright 1989 Regents of the Un...
> localhost kernel: PPP: version 2.2.0 (dynamic channel allocati...
> localhost kernel: PPP Dynamic channel allocation code copyrigh...
> localhost kernel: PPP line discipline registered.
> localhost kernel: registered device ppp0
> localhost pppd[1468]: pppd 2.3.5 started by root, uid 0
> localhost chat[1469]: timeout set to 10 seconds
> localhost chat[1469]: abort on (ERROR)
> localhost chat[1469]: abort on (BUSY)
> localhost chat[1469]: abort on (NO CARRIER)
> localhost chat[1469]: abort on (NO DIALTONE)
> localhost chat[1469]: report (CONNECT)
> localhost chat[1469]: send (AT^M)
> (i've tried several different init stings, I figured that I should at
> least get a response from AT)
> localhost chat[1469]: expect (OK)
> localhost chat[1469]: alarm
> localhost pppd[1468]: Connect script failed
> localhost chat[1469]: Failed
> localhost pppd[1468]: Exit.
>
> Please e-mail me if you have additional questions or possible solutions.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> -Jesse
>
>
Hi,
You are sending just "AT" and expecting OK from your modem. AT will
cause it to block and the timer to expire.
Try issueing ATZ and expecting OK instead.
eg,
"" ATZ
OK ATDT555-5555
CONNECT ""
That is probably all you need if you are going to authenticate via PAP.
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED](Dave)
Subject: Re: pppd - demand dialing question
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:58:45 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob) writes:
> Hi All,
> Running RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.0.36
> Had some trouble compiling diald so I'm attempting to get pppd demand
> dialing for my home network.
>
> I downloaded the source upgrade, patched the source, built the pppd
> stuff, recomiled the kernel. I am the proud owner of a demand dial
> capable pppd.
>
> I'm currently stuck on the proper pppd execution line.
>
> My ppp0 dials fine from activating it via the Network Config in X so I
> know that's right.But no luck on starting it for demand dial.
>
> I would greatly appreciate some gentle nudging as to how to invoke pppd
> to demand dial. Been around the man page, etc but have not found any
> pseudo HOW-TOs or web pages to help explain this part of diald.
> TIA,
> Bob
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_dynaddr
/usr/sbin/pppd -detach /dev/ttyS3 115200 mtu 1500 mru 1500 defaultroute demand
192.168.1.40:192.168.1.40 ipcp-accept-local ipcp-accept-remote holdoff 6 idle
340 connect 'chat -f /myChatFile'
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.networking) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Networking Digest
******************************
