Linux-Networking Digest #922, Volume #9 Mon, 18 Jan 99 07:13:39 EST
Contents:
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (Ian Smith)
Re: lpd won't accept print jobs from other machines (Scott Field)
Network card problems (megasurg)
Re: Which network driver for SMC 8216T and Red Hat 5.2? (Rick Moen)
Using Linux as mail & news host. (Graham Nicholls)
Re: Very nasty networking problem! (Brian McCauley)
Re: Security hole with WU-FTPD (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (ArchAngelQ)
Re: This is Linux, not Windows, so why not superior flexibility AND (Vihung Marathe)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (David Steuber)
Re: request-route file not working!! (Villy Kruse)
Re: /usr over nfs? (Richard Hector)
smbmount seg faults on RH 5.2 (Ole Jacob Taraldset)
Re: Slower ppp connect time with Linux than with Windows95? (Ville Nummela)
Re: Linux SuSE and Windows 95 via Network ("Glenn Davy")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:08:03 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to start a flame war, post to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
If you want help, post to either of the others.
I agree we could be more helpful, but some of us know that that
reference to advocacy is going to attract the usual BS.
So, if you _do_ want help, please remove .advocacy.
Ian.
------------------------------
From: Scott Field <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: lpd won't accept print jobs from other machines
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:31:54 +1100
I set up an NT box as a lpr client to print to RH5.2 lpd this afternoon.
I put the NT box's name and address in the Linux /etc/hosts file and its name in
/etc/hosts.lpd and /etc/hosts.equiv,
but you should only need /etc/hosts.lpd.
But when I went to print from LPR on the NT box (after setting up TCP/IP printing on
NT), I got a print error.
The linux var/log/messages said unknown printer because the NT box had made the
printer name all uppercase, but on the linux box
the printer was mixed case. So I just defined a new printer on the linux box with an
upper case name. (I could have just given an
extra name to the existing printer, but hey that would have been too easy.)
But NT still wouldnt print, although Linux /var/log/messages showed an useless kernel
message about polling lp0.
Finally I set up a user on the NT box with the same name as a user on the linux box
(must be in upper case on the linux box!). Then
the NT box successfully printed to the printer attached to linux box.
Now in the lpd man page it says the rs: option is used to specify that the print user
on the remote machine must have an
account on the lpd machine, as an extra security measure as well as hosts.lpd. But the
RH printtool does not allow you to set this
option, and furthermore warns about editting /etc/printcap. And since rs: does not
appear in my /etc/printcap entry, but
the linux box insists on a valid user from NT before it will play, then does the rs:
option in /etc/printcap entry default to true?
What gives?
Scott
John R Carlisle wrote:
> I have redhat 5.2 set up on a workstation with a local printer configure through
>printtool. I want to send print jobs from one
> other machine.
>
> I've done the following things.
>
> placed and entry in hosts.lpd and hosts.equiv
> placed the "ALL: ALL" line in hosts.allow. hosts.deny is empty
> restarted the machine after I'd made the changes
>
> the workstation still refuses to allow the connection. Any help would be
>appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> John Carlisle
------------------------------
From: megasurg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Network card problems
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:36:38 -0800
I'm having some difficulty with one of my machine connecting to the
network with linux. I have 3 machines and two of them connect fine.
One of the machines however doesn't seem to recognize the network card.
What I see is that when I boot into linux there is no light on the hub
indicating activity. However that same machine is dual booted with
windows95 and when I boot into windows95 the light is lighted and it is
connected to the network. This is odd behavior I would say. I have
done all the network setup as far as configurations the same on all
machines and yet this one doesn't come up. They all are using the same
network card (an Intel Etherexpress 16) so there should be no support
problems there. I think it is mainly that light is not lit on the hub,
but why is it lit when I boot into win95 and not linux? Can anyone help
me out? Please tell me any suggestions or info you may have. Thank
You.
--
"If there is a *quintessential zone of human privacy* it is the mind."
If you wish to send me a message using PGP my key is located here:
http://www.teleport.com/~megasurg/pgpmegasurg
------------------------------
From: Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Which network driver for SMC 8216T and Red Hat 5.2?
Date: 18 Jan 1999 11:22:45 GMT
[Followups snipped.]
In comp.os.linux.setup Ed Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Greetings!
: I'm installing Red Hat 5.2 on some old Swan 486 systems with
: SMC 8216T network cards. Red Hat 5.2 offers these choices for
: network drivers:
: SMC 9000 Series
: SMC Ultra
: SMC Ultra 32
: Which of these should I select?
See:
http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/Ethernet-HOWTO-5.html#smc
--
Cheers, The cynics among us might say: "We laugh,
Rick Moen monkeyboys -- Linux IS the mainstream UNIX now!
rick (at) linuxmafia.com MuaHaHaHa!" but that would be rude. -- Jim Dennis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Graham Nicholls)
Subject: Using Linux as mail & news host.
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have several machines. One is a linux box, another runs windows
98 (sadly). I want to be able to use the linux box (which has routed
access to the internet via an ISP) to do several things:
1. Provide a gateway for the rest of the network without the ISDN line
being bought up by the router every few minutes. It needs to ipmasquerade
packets from the other machines on the network.
The IPmasq FAQ suggests the following commands (IIRC):
ipfwadmin -F -p deny
then
ipfwadmin -F -a m -S192.nnn.nnn.nnn/30 -D0.0.0.0/0
This works, but every time my Win98 machine accesses the local network the
ISDN line is bought up by the router trying to connect to the net. The
address which I have in the second command above is that of the net card
connected to the LAN, rather than the one connected to the WAN. This
doesn't seem to make sense to me - surely I want to pretend to be sending
packets from my WAAN address assigned by the ISP?
2. I want to read news from my Linux box.
3. I want to read mail from the linux box, using the W98 machine as a
client. mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be picked up by the linux box,
and put into a SAMBA shared directory on the machine for reading by my PC
client.
So, any pointers into the right direction
Thanks
Graham Nicholls
------------------------------
From: Brian McCauley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Very nasty networking problem!
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:47:34 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott W. Petesen) writes:
> When I first boot the system (slackware 3.5, 2.0.34 kernel) everything
> is fine until I connect to my ISP. After a couple minutes to a couple
> days my linux server can not connect to ANYTHING anymore (telnet,
> fetchmail, sendmail, ftp). I cannot even telnet to the localhost!
Please define "cannot". What happens when you try? What mesages does
it give and how long does it pause between them?
Rule of thumb: Never post to Usenet saying "I can't do foo", you will
immediately be asked "what happens when you try?". It would simplify
matters if you were to answer this question without it needing to be
asked.
Shot-in-the-dark: Are you running a caching nameserver? Have you
tried killing and restarting that? If the "named" process had somehow
stalled/broken this could probably explain the symptoms.
> I inow this maybe a tough one since I have heard of only ONE other
> person with this problem.
Yes, if BIND turns out to be the culprit then this is true. BIND is
very rarely the culprit.
--
\\ ( ) No male bovine | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. _\\__[oo faeces from | Phones: +44 121 471 3789 (home)
.__/ \\ /\@ /~) /~[ /\/[ | +44 121 627 2173 (voice) 2175 (fax)
. l___\\ /~~) /~~[ / [ | PGP-fp: D7 03 2A 4B D8 3A 05 37...
# ll l\\ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | http://www.wcl.bham.ac.uk/~bam/
###LL LL\\ (Brian McCauley) |
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.security.unix,redhat.networking.general,aus.computers.linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: Security hole with WU-FTPD
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:49:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) writes:
[...]
>His comment is that while login does not allow a remote root login with no
>password, ftp does allow a root login with no password. This is what he
>is calling the bug in ftpd. It certainly is an inconsistancy between
>the two.
Agreed. Perhaps I should have added that remote root logins are
prevented generally based on the EUID used, not the actual loginname
(at least, with standard security precautions activated). From that
point of view, this is a WU-FTPD flaw.
>It is also true that this bug is minor compared to the bug which allowed
>a root user to be entered into passwd without a password.
Yup.
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ArchAngelQ)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:31:47 GMT
On 18 Jan 1999 03:17:14 GMT, "jerome" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You just have no idea what you're doing.
>Unsupported accusation.
>Most people in here consider themselves
>superior and what admit that Linux is a total
>pain in the ass at first. Unless of course
>someone has an extraordinary IQ or some
>sort of college background in computing.
>
>I belive that anyone who happens to fit the
>afore mentioned profiles would not even respond
>to a post like "DOES LINUX SUCK".
>
>Jerome
>
>
>
Agreed. That's why I have staid out of this till now. But the draw is
just to great. All I have to say is that, being new to linux, that
there is plenty of intermediate info out on the net and in the linux
docs, but almost no total newbie stuff. Up untill about two weeks ago,
I was a total newbie. But now you can see me helping people out on
here as much as I can. If two weeks of experience is all it takes to
be able to help people, then all you snobs who say that this person
sucks, or has no idea what he/she is doing is wrong in the first part,
and right but misjudging in the second, because they two where newbies
not to long ago, and I am sure they came to this NG for help on wierd,
obscure, and easy to solve problems. So thpppt to all you stuck up
people that Jerome was talking about!
Hunter Thomas
------------------------------
From: Vihung Marathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: This is Linux, not Windows, so why not superior flexibility AND
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:53:18 -0800
Kevin wrote:
> Acutally, I thought he had a point, since most Linux users I've met have
> grand dreams of usurping Windows (98 *and* NT) and MacOS....which does beg
> the question.
>
> If Linux is *not* being shot at the "typical" home user, than you are
> quite right, "hard" is not the issue.
>
> I guess my point is, what is the goal of users of the Linux platform, anyway?
This might seem off the mark, but from my observations, the goal of Linux, and in
effect all Open Source Movement products is
To try to minimise the entry barriers for infrastructure
The short-term commercial benefits of this alone are almost zero.
However the developers tend to gain benefits in different ways:
* Firstly, short- to medium-term benefits from recognition in the developer
community.
* Secondly, (and more important), long term benefits from selling services
based upon the infrastructure
The IBM-PC standard turned hardware into a commodity because it was openly
licensed. Similarly, Linux will turn the OS into commodity
This is achieved by creating open standards for systems developers, device
manufacturers, and applications developers.
The first people to rally under this banner were naturally techies, geeks and
hackers - who developed it to solve their own particular needs. The result is a
very stable, high-performance, low-requirement platform for server-type
functionality.
As the situatioin stands right now, Linux is not targeted towards, first-time
computer users, basic bread-and-butter (word processing, spreadsheets and e-mail
only) users, graphic artists, writers and other creative types, and mickey-mouse
programmers (Visual Basic/Delphi developers)
Now, the movement is gaining critical mass, and we should see more development in
these areas. There are already projects under way right now such as GIMP, Gnome
and the K project that might cater to some tech-savvy users in these fields.
Linux is not for the desktop ... yet.
Linux is already ursurping NT. It has the fastest growing user base, run on 54%
of websites, is already mimicing NT servers in the server rooms of many MS-only
shops (without their knowledge), and forms a significant backbone at most ISPs.
Considering that MS plans to phase out Win 95/98 completely in favor of NT on the
desktop, I think they have usurped their own product.
As for MacOS, you might be interested in this little peice of news - Apple's
MacOS X is essentially a Linux-like kernel (Well ... OK. It is actually FreeBSD -
which is born from the same philosophy as Linux) with a MacOS-like front end.
-- V
Please remove the .nospam from my reply-to address
____________________________________________________________
V i h u n g M a r a t h e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: 18 Jan 1999 02:56:52 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
-> I know this questions is highly debated.
Actually, this question is argued. Debate implies some sort of effort
is put into constructing logical claims based on technical merits and
useability.
-> But consider this,
-> I've got a generic un-modified RedHat 5.2 install,
-> with a supported PCMCIA card from 3com, a 3CXEM556B.
->
-> Now after 2 full days of work, and countless emails to and from helpful
-> folks, including the gentlemen who maintains the PCMCIA page, the darn
-> thing still doesn't work.
The PCMCIA card doesn't work? Or the whole of Linux?
If you are talking about the NIC, then I know something of what you
mean. I purchased my NIC seperatly from my notebook computer to make
sure I was getting a supported NIC. I had to fetch the latest PCMCIA
drivers to recognize the card. But David Hinds and Donald Becker have
done a good job. I followed the make mantra and I was in bussiness.
So. Did you get xforms and build cardinfo? This is a very useful
program to let you know if the card is even recognized.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that things don't always go
smoothly. But this doesn't mean that Linux sucks. Not by a long
shot. It took me about three days of solid effort to get my notebook
computer set up. Believe me, it was worth it.
I have the SuSE 5.3 distro. I spent the first day simply deciding
which packages to install. With only a 6.4GB drive, I didn't want to
throw in the works. The actual install took about 30 minutes and I
had a working Linux installation.
The next day was spent setting up my X server. That required fetching
the latest NeoMagic driver. I also decided to rebuild my kernel.
Linux makes it so easy to rebuild the kernel that I no longer think of
it as something strange to do. The build only takes about 8 minutes.
I was following a recipe for doing all this. I didn't, and still
don't, have a clue.
The network card was the hardest thing to set up. My first difficulty
was getting the damn thing. 3Com had come out with a new card. It
was a gratuitous change as far as I can tell. The card I wanted was
discontinued. So I got the new card only to find that the pcmcia
drivers I had didn't know what the hell it was. Going back to the
pcmcia site fixed that. New drivers were already available for it.
I went through make configure, make, and make install. Suddenly
cardinfo was showing me the card. Then all I had to do was figure out
how to set up /etc/route.conf. There are actually only two lines in
that file.
Basicly, what I went through was the inevitable trials of a total
newbie without a clue. The satisfaction of getting it all working was
quite indescribable.
The reason Windows installs so easily is quite simple. Microsoft
threw a lot of programmers at getting an install utility that knows
all about every piece of hardware out there. It knows windows.
However, if you run into hardware that windows doesn't recognize, and
you don't have drivers for it, you are sol.
I am sure you will get your NIC working if you keep at it. There was
probably some simple step you left out or something.
After things have been working for a while, you will wonder why you
ever bothered with windows.
Good luck!
--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail
SYSTEM ALERT: /dev/null is full. Please delete any unnecessary files.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Villy Kruse)
Subject: Re: request-route file not working!!
Date: 18 Jan 1999 12:57:32 +0100
In article <77t4ph$4t0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a linux machine set up as a modem-dial ppp server with
>IP-masquerading. I'm trying to setup auto-dialling, and have read about it,
>but my kernel simply doesn't invoke a /etc/request-route file. Do I need to
>recompile or something? Any help.. Thanks
>
You can use diald for this purpose.
Villy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:59:00 +1300
From: Richard Hector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: /usr over nfs?
Geoff Short wrote:
>
> Markus Hauke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> :
> : On the clients should only run a minimal Linux system, so that they can
> : boot on their own and then do mount the /usr tree from the server.
>
> Yes, most unix systems seem to be designed to do this, and allow /usr
> to be read-only if you like. Certainly Slackware assumes that /usr
> may be nfs mounted.
>
> As long as the system startup scripts mount /usr as soon as possible, you
> shouldn't have any problems.
>
I was thinking about doing this at home (I have a machine with a 40meg
hard disk). But what is likely to happen with Debian or Redhat's package
management? Will they lose track of what's where, or are they designed
to handle this?
Richard Hector
------------------------------
From: Ole Jacob Taraldset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: smbmount seg faults on RH 5.2
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:20:19 +0100
I have some problems with smbmount. I use RH 5.2 and the
smbfs-2.0.2-6.i386.rpm found in redhat contrib. I do the following:
/usr/sbin/smbmount //stella/ojt /mnt/stella -U ojt
and as soon as I hit return it seg faults. I have tried to recompile the
package, but smbmount still seg faults.
Please email as well as post here as I'm not a regular reader of this
NG.
Ole Jacob
--
GexCon AS, Bergen, Norway <http://www.gexcon.com>
Tel : +47 55574334 (office) +47 55558650 (home)
Mob.tel. : +47 95080525 Fax : +47 55574331
PGP key : <http://home.c2i.net/ojt/pgp.txt>
------------------------------
From: Ville Nummela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slower ppp connect time with Linux than with Windows95?
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:15:12 +0200
On 18 Jan 1999, Dan Birchall wrote:
> >I have installed RH 5.1 and connect to the internet with a Zyxel
> >OmniNet+ ISDN. It takes approximately 4-5 seconds to get a working ppp
> >connection to my ISP. Under W95 it takes 1.5-1.8 seconds. Anyone who
> >knows the reason for this?
> I don't use ISDN, but I'm curious whether the delay might be at least
> partly due to the fact that the average Linux box is running far more
> in the way of Internet daemons and stuff than the average Win95 box.
I don't think so.. It's much more likely that it's all due the way ppp is
configured. Linux is probably configured to enter account names and
passwords and stuff, and W95 just starts ppp as soons as it gets
connected. With slow-as-hell -servers like the ISPs in Finland use the
difference can be over 10 seconds. Quick test with one of them showed that
if I configure my pppd to start right after "CONNECT" it has a working ppp
connection in about 2 seconds, and if I have chat entering my account name
and password and commands to start ppp on the server side it takes 5-20
seconds. So the magic "trick" is to use the ua-option of pppd..
--
| ViGe / gasp inc. | http://www.lut.fi/~vnummela | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| IRC natura alienum est! Periculosum est! Delendum est! |
------------------------------
From: "Glenn Davy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux SuSE and Windows 95 via Network
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:49:22 +1100
www.linuxhq.com has a list of howto's
You might want to consider
Ethernet howto
SMB How to
Net3 howto
Networking overview
Hope this gets you started,
Glenn
Kai Acker wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I am looking for FAQ or something like that to establish a connection
>via Ethernet etho between an Windows 95 and an Linux SuSE 5.3 machine,
>Has anybody an idea?
>
>Tahnx
>
>Kai
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
