Linux-Misc Digest #91, Volume #20 Fri, 7 May 99 00:13:08 EDT
Contents:
PPP (Ryan Green)
Re: Linux Client for MS Network (Ken Williams)
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (Jim Richardson)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (Jim Richardson)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (Jim Richardson)
Re: a) Win98 b) SYS (Kenny McCormack)
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Re: PPP (jik-)
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Sam Holden)
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Re: RedHat 6.0 or SuSe 6.1? (Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sch=FCtt?=)
TCP/IP Question (Fred Kuipers)
Re: I/O boards (Marc D. Bumble)
Re: NTFS - again and Redhat 6.0 (Steve Smoogen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ryan Green)
Subject: PPP
Date: 6 May 1999 22:56:15 GMT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams)
Subject: Re: Linux Client for MS Network
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 02:49:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Grossmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was wondering if there was a Linux client for Microsoft windows
>networking.
I think the closest there is is smbmount. Make a directory off your root
called fileserver or something, then make a script called login and logout,
that mounts and unmounts the smb fileserver with smbmount. Close enough I
think.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 22:58:45 GMT
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Richard Caley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:>Surely this is only a really unknowable proiblem if you are using the
:>wrong metric. For instance number of jobs is clearly a stupid limit to use
:>for this. If your metric is resopnce time, swapping rate or something else
:>meaningful to the actual task, then it's much easier to put in reasonable
:>limits.
:
: But none of the above may be the critical factor if the real problem is
: that for some of the web requests you send a query to an external database
: and the responses come back slighly slower than the requests come in. You
: end up with an increasing number of processes consuming memory but nothing
: else is really wrong - the processes are all waiting on network I/O.
From Apache's httpd.conf:
# Limit on total number of servers running, i.e., limit on the
# number of clients who can simultaneously connect --- if this limit
# is ever reached, clients will be LOCKED OUT, so it should NOT BE
# SET TOO LOW. It is intended mainly as a brake to keep a runaway
# server from taking the system with it as it spirals down...
MaxClients 150
See also `man login.conf'
:>I'm not arguing that there should never be a resource problem, indeed
:>I think we have one at the moment, sigh. I'm saying that it shouldn't
:>be necessary to reboot to untie the knots.
:>
:>[I have no idea whether FBSD is better than linux on this, if I had to
:>guess I'd guess yes based on it having been around longer so had more
:>chance to evolve ways to cope.]
:
: Rebooting is just the fastest way back, and the only sure one if you have
: really hit any resource limits.
You shouldn't have hit them in the first place on a properly
configured system (see above), and even if you have it should not
cause any permanent detrimental effects to the system. At least on
FreeBSD I've never had any such effects from running out of swap and
I wouldn't tolerate a system that did. Much of the code I develop
sucks up the entire swap on a regular basis (I run it under
unlimited resource settings durring *testing*) so I know this
condition well. I have *never* crashed this box so much as once and
never needed to reboot for anything other then a kernel change
and/or system upgrade.
If a Unix system can't handle `crashme' without needing a reboot
afterwards it has problems. FreeBSD doesn't have such problems.
: Even if you kill off the problem processes you have to wait for the
: lingering sockets to free up and you are taking the chance that the
: machine will crash before you can fix things.
Why should the machine have a chance to crash?
: I like to see uptimes measured in months, but once in a while a quick
: reboot is the best choice.
Rooting my box takes about three minutes minimum. Waiting for dead
sockets to go away takes far less time then rebooting, and lingering
sockets have *nothing* to do with hitting resource limits, only the
process not terminating them correctly.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Yah, Emacs is a good OS, but I prefer FreeBSD.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 03:29:37 GMT
On 06 May 1999 15:35:01 -0700, Michael Powe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>>>>>> "Jesus" == Jesus Monroy, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jesus> On Wed, 05 May 1999 00:17:11 GMT,
> Jesus> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Keto
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> I really hate to see Unix and Unix software marketed like
> >>> single user operating systems.
>
> >> Why not? That's what they are, at least from the demographics
> >> figures. The number of Unix workstations _far_ outnumbers the
> >> number of servers. The same was not true ten or probably even
> >> five years ago, but it's true today.
> >>
> Jesus> I've given your comments some thought and as far as I
> Jesus> can tell the biggest "hold back"/feature is personal
> Jesus> security.
>
> Jesus> Most people, for what I can decearn, want a machine
> Jesus> that they can use as stand alone. However, they want the is
> Jesus> machine to free from most of the security glitches that
> Jesus> plague UNIX. Namely, they don't want other people to be
> Jesus> able to get into their machine.
>
> Jesus> Yes, I know M$ win95 does not do this, but a least you
> Jesus> can have that an enviromentally controlled area (ie. your
> Jesus> home). While it is true anyone can walk up to a win95
> Jesus> machine a simple get on that is really a *feature*.
>
>You're confused. There are thousands of WinDOS machines networked in
>offices that have zippola for security. At least where I work (some
>hundreds of machines), the only ones with security features in place
>are ones which have those features enabled by the users themselves (I
>have a BIOS password on mine).
>
I appoligize for my rather poorly written remarks.
I'll restate them:
"Yes, I know M$ win95 does not do this (security),
but a least you can have that an enviromentally
controlled area. That is to say, you have an area
in your home or office that is secure from the
outside world.
More plainly, your computer (if win95) sits in
your house. Your house has a lock on it.
No one can enter you house and play with your
computer.
With a UNIX box you enter someones computer
from the outside world via the internet.
While it is true anyone can walk up to a win95
machine and simply get on it; this is really a *feature*.
--
If you have to read the docs, it's broken.
I hate making mistakes.
You can check my spelling at: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 03:23:37 GMT
On Thu, 06 May 1999 22:18:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Jesus Monroy, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>: In short, as I see it two (2) release will be needed to
>: accomplish any type of 'marketing' success. Both releases
>: must have the ablity to walk up to a machine and just
>: use it NO password with NO su issues whatsoever.
>
> fubar::0:0:Joe Fool:/root:/usr/local/bin/zsh
>
I guess I'm not making my point clear enough.
There would be NO login need, period. The shell is
just there.
>: One release will have the ability to login in remotely,
>: but will have none the traditional services (ftp,www)
>: installed. All services need to be configured (somehow),
>: except telnet (remote login). (This version of course will
>: requires a password to login remotely.)
>:
>: The other release will have the 'traditional' services
>: installed and running, but have no login facilites built-in,
>: EVEN in the kernel. The second method should garauntee that
>: no machine had the capabilities to be infultrated (sp?).
>
> And these two releases would be useful to who, exactly?
>
The average person, that knows nothing about 'how a computer runs,
nor cares'.
> Telnetd without at least ftpd? Another with all services except
> telnetd or even a getty on console? You're a bit late for April
> 1st.
>
I can make this clearer, if you like, but I am totally serious.
--
If you have to read the docs, it's broken.
I hate making mistakes.
You can check my spelling at: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism
Date: 7 May 1999 02:01:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 05 May 1999 07:47:22 -0700,
Andrew Carol, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Richardson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 May 1999 14:14:22 -0700,
>> Andrew Carol, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>> >2 - Person registers software on-line.
>>
>> via a n IP_masqueraded box, which strips out the ID (encrypted ot plain)
>> and inserts it's own.
>
>If the ID is pre-encrypted using Intels public key, what does that do
>for you? You can't insert yours. You don't even know yours. If you
>make one up, it won't work.
if it is encrypted with intels public key, then I can encrypt the
"fake" key with the same intel public key
>
>> >5 - Intel returns CPU's public key.
>> >This prevents spoofing. Intel knows all id->public key pairs
>>
>> Assuming that the vendor is not in cahoots with the user.
>
>It really doesn't matter here. The pairs could actually be in the
>phone book. As long as only the CPU knows it's own private key and you
>can't invent a CPU's public key all is well.
>
>> >8 - When run, the CPU reads the "magic" value, decodes with private
>> >key, and now obtains the software decode key.
>>
>> squid sniffs out the decode key from the registers on the chip.
>
>What is a "squid"? (Quantum measuring device used at low temp?)
yes
(super conducting quantum interference device.)
>
>I do know there are packaging methods which are very resistant to
>attack, and will erase any key information if the package is opened.
>Layers of metalization can be placed above (and even below) active
>circutry. A small battery could even be embeded in the package to keep
>circuitry active looking for attacks (such as being opened or rapid
>temp change). Since a key could be erased in under a micro second,
>there are very few attacks which could shut it down first. This would
>be expensive, but Intel has proven they can take a very expensive
>design and get costs down simply by enourmouse production volume.
>
While their competitors have a price advantage of non-crippled
chips to beat intel over the head with. And intel still faces the problem
that braking one chip, kills the whole system. And this doesn't address
the interception problem. At some point. THere is a call from software
that can be intercepted and rewritten. F00F style.
>I am sure that any company with a few tens of billions to throw around
>would be able to figure this out. From their point of view, if the
>first generation got broken, they would adapt and rev their design.
>
>> There are at least 3 avenues of attack for this encryption system that do
>> _not_ require a squid, and using a squid, the system breaks down completely.
>> Sorry...
>
>What are they?
>
>--- Andrew
Man in the middle, interception of api calls, (or whatever level the
call is at.) bribery of an intel employee.
--
Jim Richardson
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All hail Eris
"Linux, where do you want to go tomorrow?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism
Date: 7 May 1999 02:01:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04 May 1999 21:13:54 -0700,
Michael Powe, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> >>> Why do you expect ESR to go completely nuts some day? do you
> >>> have a rational reason for this expectation?
> >> I had a long e-mail conversation with him. He's not only
> >> anarcho-capitalist, but a hard-core libertarian, too. I fully
> >> expect every libertarian to go nuts some day.
>
> Jim> Kind of an odd position to take given the libertarian
> Jim> rejection of initiation of force...
>
>That's nonsense. Libertarianism is founded on the principle of `might
>makes right.' It's Social Darwinism in a pin-striped suit.
>
Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a classic example of a claim without
any proof or evidence.
Could you explain what tenet of Libertarianism, espouses "might makes
right"? I'd settle for _any_ such statement by any libertarian group
or major figure in this philosophy. Shouldn't be too tough for you to
back up this rather odd claim, right?
--
Jim Richardson
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All hail Eris
"Linux, where do you want to go tomorrow?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism
Date: 7 May 1999 02:01:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 May 1999 21:48:35 +0200,
Klaus Schilling, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> >>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Matthias> It was the 4 May 1999 03:03:18 GMT... ..and Jim
>> Matthias> Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 3 May 1999 15:47:34 +0200, Matthias Warkus, in the
>> >> persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, brought forth the following
>>
>> >> someday. Maybe it's not >Perens whom he'll shoot. We'll see. >
>
>If ESR shoots someone, that will be me, cos I'm an anarcho-communist,
>and a radical mystician on top of all.
why would he shoot you? would you be physically attacking him?
>
>>
>> >> Why do you expect ESR to go completely nuts some day? do you
>> >> have a rational reason for this expectation?
>
>What is rational about going nuts?
>>
Actually I was asking about a rational reason for your belief.
>> Matthias> I had a long e-mail conversation with him. He's not only
>> Matthias> anarcho-capitalist, but a hard-core libertarian, too. I
>
>Ain't libertarian synonymous for anarcho-capitalist?
>
no.
Although the sets often overlap.
>Klaus Schilling
--
Jim Richardson
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All hail Eris
"Linux, where do you want to go tomorrow?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenny McCormack)
Subject: Re: a) Win98 b) SYS
Date: 6 May 1999 22:20:09 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Przem Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
....
>>What is the equivalent of the DOS 'SYS' command in Linux?
>
>There is no stright way to transfer system from hard disk to a floppy (I'm
>guessing you want to do it).
Actually, there is:
cp /boot/vmlinuz /dev/fd0
That's basically it, but there may be one or two fiddles needed. Left
as exercize for the reader.
If you want a standalone Linux on a floppy, check out:
http://www.tudols.com/minidist.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 03:35:14 GMT
On 6 May 1999 23:26:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
>writes:
>
>> Most people, for what I can decearn, want a machine that
>> they can use as stand alone. However, they want the is machine
>> to free from most of the security glitches that plague UNIX.
>> Namely, they don't want other people to be able to get into
>> their machine.
>
>If security were the issue, noone would use Win9x. They are very
>insecure.
>
Yes, we agree that win95 machines are insecure.
>> Yes, I know M$ win95 does not do this, but a least you can
>> have that an enviromentally controlled area (ie. your home).
>> While it is true anyone can walk up to a win95 machine a
>> simple get on that is really a *feature*.
>
>Unix is very secure if not connected to a network. Win is very insecure
>as soon as it is connected to a network. Terrible comparison you make!
>
Not true. Win95 machines are secure even when permenantly
connect to the Internet. The primary reason is that
they do not have a login shell. I believe my comparison
to be valid.
No login shell is a *feature* of win95.
>> In short, as I see it two (2) release will be needed to
>> accomplish any type of 'marketing' success. Both releases
>> must have the ablity to walk up to a machine and just
>> use it NO password with NO su issues whatsoever.
>
>Sorry- why is this necessary??? You can certainly set up Linux that way
>if you really want! In fact just run an automatic login to some user in
>the init sequence. But that is silly. Why do parents not want to have
>their stuff segregated from their kids? Do you really think people habe
>such a difficult time typing in a name and a password? This is not the
>issue!
>
Yes it is an issue. I definitely is. Losing you pword involves
administrative involvement.
Every extra feature that is added, ie. login with shell and
privleages, is an encumberance to end-users. You can ignore
the issue, but that does not relieve the results.
If you like, I can elaborate with examples.
--
If you have to read the docs, it's broken.
I hate making mistakes.
You can check my spelling at: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:12:52 -0700
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PPP
Ryan Green wrote:
Good question, I will look into that right away.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 03:39:23 GMT
On 06 May 1999 13:42:35 +0200, "Rolf Marvin B�e Lindgren"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>......[SNIP].......
>
>all of this convinced me that an operating system that does not support
>an OPERATOR concept is fundamentally single-user. there muse be a user
>midway between user and root.
>
>
Your arguement stands up well, but detracts from the
question at hand. UNIX is lacking with support for
an "operator". However, there are plenty of patches for
this. SCO for example has plenty of "operator"-style
functionallity for most applications.
In truth, UNIX just needs to be configured this way.
However, let me note that will your comments are valid,
if distracts from the topic at hand:
Is Unix a single user operating system?
--
If you have to read the docs, it's broken.
I hate making mistakes.
You can check my spelling at: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 03:41:18 GMT
On 06 May 1999 13:44:15 +0100, Richard Caley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>ObRant: What I do dislike is systems which insist on changing
>permissions on thoings for me making me do things as root. FBSD
>add_pkg seems convinced it knows better than me who should be able to
>rwite to /usr/local/* for instance.
>
Sorry to disappoint you, but FBSD has facilities for this.
However, this is where I disapoint you, it is not document well.
--
If you have to read the docs, it's broken.
I hate making mistakes.
You can check my spelling at: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Date: 7 May 1999 03:40:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jesus Monroy, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 May 1999 22:18:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Jesus Monroy, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >snip<
>>: In short, as I see it two (2) release will be needed to
>>: accomplish any type of 'marketing' success. Both releases
>>: must have the ablity to walk up to a machine and just
>>: use it NO password with NO su issues whatsoever.
>>
>> fubar::0:0:Joe Fool:/root:/usr/local/bin/zsh
>>
> I guess I'm not making my point clear enough.
> There would be NO login need, period. The shell is
> just there.
So automatically run a shell on a console as some guest user.
When the shell exits it gets started up again.... A small
modification to a configuration file...
However, I have to login to my windows box anyway, with a
username and password (it remembers the username though)...
--
Sam
Basically, avoid comments. If your code needs a comment to be
understood, it would be better to rewrite it so it's easier to
understand. --Rob Pike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 03:49:28 GMT
On 6 May 1999 17:18:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Rolf Marvin Be Lindgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>writes:
>
>>right, and a file can belong to at most one user and one group, and on
>>some unices there's even a limitation to how many groups a user can
>>belong to.
>
>Yes, a more detailed ACL would be useful sometimes. However yo useems to
>be of the opinion that if an OS does not have just the thing that you
>want, then it must be single user. It is funny how a single user OS can
>then have 50 people all running under the single user OS and not getting
>in each others way. If you want to call such a system single user, I
>guess you may. You are free to invent your own language which
>communicates to noone else if you wish.
>
I think you've missed his point. I saw it as, fundemently
to fix, or do major operations, on most UNIX systems it does
require the locateablity, reliablity and cooperativeness of
one entity, 'root'. Give 'root' is one person you are subject
to this persons whims, troubles and incompetence.
I think we can all find stories where a sysadmin, through
arragonce or some other means forestalled and slow a company
to their way of doing things. In short, the "single-userness"
that was mentioned is purely political.
Perhaps you can see that point?
>...........[Snipped Ranting].............
>.......[More Ranting by both parties].........
>>midway between user and root.
>
>I do not call something which can read and write anywhere "midway
>between user and root" I call it root.
>
This is a symantic issue at this point, not syntactic.
Should I elaborate more?
--
If you have to read the docs, it's broken.
I hate making mistakes.
You can check my spelling at: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 11:13:38 +0200
From: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sch=FCtt?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.0 or SuSe 6.1?
"Derek S. Smigelski" wrote:
>
> I have both which is better??
>
> Thanks,
> Derek
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why don't you find out?
--
home: www.thomas-schuett.de
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Fred Kuipers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: TCP/IP Question
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 01:31:20 GMT
Hi.
I'm running RedHat 6. I have two computers: 192.168.1.1 (Windows
95) and 192.168.1.2 (Linux). The Linux machine is also connected to the
internet via cable modem. I am wondering if it is possible to ftp IN to
the Windows 95 machine from the outside world. If so, what needs to be
done to enable this. (Please note: I use ipchains, not ipfwadm)
Secondly, the Linux box also has a phone modem. I will require this
modem to dial-in in the future to check private newsgroups. I can dial
out and connect to the destination, however, I still cannot access these
newsgroups because all packets are going through the cable modem rather
than the phone modem. How can I cause traffic to go through the modem
while dialed in??
Here is my [slightly edited] routing table:
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
Iface
192.168.1.2 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
eth0
24.112.xxx.xx 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
eth1
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
eth0
24.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0
eth1
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0
lo
0.0.0.0 24.112.216.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
eth1
And here is what I have setup for ipchains (that I know of):
/sbin/ipchains -P forward DENY
/sbin/ipchains -A forward -j MASQ -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 0.0.0.0/0 -i eth1
Also, is it possible to play Quake over the net from 192.168.1.1
(the Win95 PC) without running a server on the other machine?? If so,
how?
Fred
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I/O boards
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc D. Bumble)
Date: 06 May 1999 22:21:41 -0400
Yes,
I have some experience with this. On FreeBSD, at work, I am using a cyclades
serial port card to talk off the PC. you can use minicom or cu or tip to get
traffic out of the serial ports via an RS232 line. Its the easiest and most
realiable way. But its not parallel,
marc
>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt> I am trying to set up a computer that will have a digital
Matt> i/o interface to the world. I searched the manufacturers
Matt> for support with linux drivers to find nothing.
Matt> Is there anyone out there that has experience with this? I
Matt> would like to be able to write c++ programs taht will be
Matt> able to talk to to the cards
Matt> thanks matt davies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
======== Over 73,000 Newsgroups = Including Dedicated Binaries Servers =======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Smoogen)
Subject: Re: NTFS - again and Redhat 6.0
Date: 7 May 1999 03:02:28 GMT
I hate to say this, but we dont have NTFS support out of the box in the
kernel (2.2.5) we shipped in 6.0. I am not sure what the cause was, but
I did notice that 2.2.6 or 2.2.7 have a LOT of patches to the NTFS tree
which would indicate that their may have been stability issues.
I have seen a report on USEnet that someone just recompiled the kernel
and it worked for them... but as always YMMV
On 7 May 1999 01:39:41 GMT, Bruce Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am wondering if anyone has seen/heard of NTFS support
> in RedHat 6.0 yet..
>
> Only been a few days since its release, but I would like
> to use it if possible..
>
> And I would like to do read/write operations too, but I
> gather it is unlikely we have a stable writning NTFS driver
> at this stage..
>
> regards,
>
> Bruce Robertson + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Engineering Computer Resources, + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> C/o Faculty of Engineering, + Phone: + (61)(3) 9344-4242
> University of Melbourne, 3052. AUSTRALIA + Fax: + (61)(3) 9347-2480
--
SJS -- Red Hat Technical Support
[Please be aware I cannot always answer email directly emailed at me. I
try to answer on the news groups for more people to see the information
and correct me if I am wrong :)]
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
