Linux-Networking Digest #946, Volume #9 Wed, 20 Jan 99 02:13:44 EST
Contents:
Re: Connect without hub (Paul Gress)
Firewall and IPSec ("Leo Stutzmann")
HELP: 3Com 3C900B-TPO NIC (Jeff Barriault)
Re: Linux to Win95 Null-Modem Connection (Peter W)
Acer NIC ("Jim Ray")
Re: 3Com 3c509b, not working under RH 5.2 (Mykool)
Re: howto setup a pop for dailup (Raymond Doetjes)
Re: Long pauses on bootup/reboot. ("Bertie Price")
Re: IP/MAC Routing (Malware)
Re: Connect without hub ("Guy A. Wadsworth")
Re: Login as root with telnet (Bernardo Santos Wernesback)
Re: Hi, ("MrCyber")
Re: ppp-on doesn't respond ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Where can I get documentation to help set an internet connection in Linux ("Mode
Mungert")
Re: 2 modems one connection ("Mark Vandersteen")
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (mlw)
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? ("Terra")
Re: AOL with IP masq (Benjohn007)
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Richard Steiner)
Re: Hubs (Richard Steiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Gress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.sys.sun.admin,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.win95
Subject: Re: Connect without hub
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:56:52 -0500
If the machines are connected direct, there cannot be any collisions. Two wires
are for transmit and two wires are for receive. This is why you need a crossover
in the wires. So the computers can be connected:
Computer "A" Computer "B"
Xmit --------------->Rec
Rec--------------->Xmit
There cannot be a collision. One computer the Xmit is connected directly to the
Rec and the Rec is connected directly to the Xmit.
With a Hub, all the Xmit's are connected on the same side, and all the Rec's are
connected on the same side. It's up to the Hub to allow only one Xmit or Rec at
a time between one set of computers. If two sets of computers try to communicate
to the same computer at the same time, there is a possibility of a collision.
Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> What about the situation where you are connecting together two machines
> via RJ45 ? Don't ethernet cards with 10bT interfaces rely on the hub
> for collision detection? If a hub detects a collision, it sends out a signal
> which causes the cards to retransmit...Otherwise packets are lost?
>
> In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Rob Wiltbank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> No, a hub is designed to to take packets and distribute them as best as
> >> is can to their destination. You're more likely to have packets collide
> >> on a peer to peer than through a hub.
>
> > Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought a hub simply made the appropriate
> > electrical connections. That is, to my knowledge, a hub does not
> > deal with packets, only with electronics. (If it deals with packets
> > and distributes them to their destinations appropriately, then it
> > is probably a switch. Granted, one could say "hub" and mean
> > "switching hub", but in those context (microhubs) that's probably
> > not the idea.)
>
> > So, in my understanding, you're *just* as likely to have packets
> > collide on a two host network whether or not you have a hub.
>
> > - Logan
>
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> --
> --
> More people have died in the last five minutes from alcohol and tobacco use
> than have died from LSD and MDMA use in the history of the world.
------------------------------
From: "Leo Stutzmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Firewall and IPSec
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:50:08 GMT
I have a private network with 5 machines (2 are NT, 1 is Win98, 2 are Linux
(RH5.2)). I have this network connected to a Firewall, also running RH5.2.
The firewall connects and masqerades to a cable modem to the Internet.
Everthing works great and I'm a happy camper.
Now work has implemented an Extranet host using IPSec. I have the client
installed on an NT machine.
Does anyone know how to configure the firewall to allow this traffic? Is
this possible? Or is there an IPSec patch that needs to be applied?
Thanks, any help would be appreciated.
Leo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Barriault)
Subject: HELP: 3Com 3C900B-TPO NIC
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:28:46 GMT
Greetings,
I have a Win 95 system with a 3Com 3C900B-TPO NIC, and I would like to
convert the system over to use Linux. The Linux Ethernet-Howto doesn't
list this card as supported. Before I waste a lot of time trying to
get this card to work, I was wondering if anyone had any experience
with it and could at least tell me what driver to use?
Thanks,
Jeff B.
------------------------------
From: Peter W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux to Win95 Null-Modem Connection
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:56:04 -0500
jymohqes wrote:
> Can I send file between Windows 95 and my Linux box via a null modem?
> If so how? I'd like to be able to dial-up to my ISP on one and have
> both be able to acces the internet. Is this possible? Any help would be
> GREATLY aprreciated.
Null modem? Yuck. Could be done, sure. Look up the pppd info about running pppd
as a server on a serial port. Then look up the firewall, IP Masquerade, and
Network Address Translation (= ip masq) info. Connect to the net with Linux.
Establish a "dial-up" connection from win95 to the linux pppd machine. Set up IP
forwarding & masquerading. Voila.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Acer NIC
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:51:46 -0500
Alright, I'm desperately trying to move ENTIRELY to linux, but I need to get
on the net at this point. being that I am a student, I have direct access
from my dorm and use a 10/baseT ethernet connection. Here's my question:
Is there a driver for the Acer Lan 201. It's a 32-bit PCI combo card
(supporting UTP and BNC connections at 10mb/s ). It works great under
windows NT, but I like I said, I'm trying to move to another platform. The
model number is ALN-201. I'd really like to not have to use the NE-2000
standard driver, and will even be willing to just replace the damn card if
need be. I know that Acer has a SCO Unix driver--will this work?? Thanks!!
Jim
to reply directly, please remove the .nospam at the end of the e-mail
address
------------------------------
From: Mykool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: 3Com 3c509b, not working under RH 5.2
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:08:53 -0500
Try turning off the PnP with the config utility.
Melvin Mathew Meadlin II wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a 3com 3c509b ethernet card which works fine under Windows 95,
> but I can't get it to work under Red Hat 5.2. Does anyone have any
> suggestions????
>
> --
> Melvin Mathew Meadlin II
>
> If is the biggest word in the middle of life
> Melvin Mathew Meadlin
--
Michael Barnhill
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte294f
ICQ 13526262
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Raymond Doetjes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: howto setup a pop for dailup
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:32:31 +0100
I suggest something better:
Go to one of your ISP's and request a BSMTP/ETRN account and if you not
already have one a domain name.
When you are online mail will be brought directly to your server (When
the ISP has the MX records setup correctly). When you are ofline all mail
is queued on the server.
Once every 30 or 60 miniutes you run the etrn.pl script that comes with
sendmail and it will look on the bsmtp server of your provider if there
is any mail and then send it to you.
This has a very big advantage, because any user you make on your linuxbox
has its own mailbox also on the inet. FOrinstace you cerate a user
mkienast then youve also got the email address mkienast@yourdomain. With
sendmail yuo can also create aliases and so a user can create there own
modified name f.i. markus.kienast (wich is in real life mkienast).
These accounts don't cost very much and you have all the flexibility that
you want. Good ISP's will even help you setup sendmail. (Or when you ask
me and I create a nice crontab and a nice sendmail.cf for you).
Raymond
Markus Kienast wrote:
> i�ve got a network with dailup acces to the internet. the users on the
> workstations should have full mail access via my own pop and fetchmail
> should go out and get their mail, if the check mails on this pop. is
> this the normal way? is there some more common way? how to solve this
> problem? how to configure fetchmail, pop, ... ?
>
> tnx,
> hugo
------------------------------
From: "Bertie Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Long pauses on bootup/reboot.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 07:29:35 +0200
Hi,
Check your /etc/resolv.conf and /etc/hosts files.
Digital Wokan wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Seems like RH 5.1 keeps stopping for several minutes every time it tries
>to start 'amd', 'sendmail', and 'smb' (if there are more, I haven't been
>patient enough to reach them). Can anyone suggest to me why my system
>(K5-133) would take so long to start those?
>--
>Digital Wokan, Tribal Mage of the Electronics Age
>Commanding Officer, Quake clan: N.A.V.Y.
>Assistant webmaster, Baldur's Gate Guild: The Shadow Runners
>http://members.xoom.com/wokan/
>ICQ: 4168945 AOL-IM: DWokan
>-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
>Version: 3.12
>GCS d-(+) s-:+ a- C++++ UL>++$ P+ L+>++$ E--->+ W++(+++)>$ N++
>o? K++ w++@ !O M- V-- PS+>++ PE Y+>++ PGP t+ 5 X+ R++ tv+ b+
>DI++ D++ G e+* h r++ y++*
>------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
------------------------------
From: Malware <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IP/MAC Routing
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:15:38 +0100
Hi Jan,
you wrote:
> I want that IP bound to one specific network card, so that anyone who is
> not in the pair list will not be routed to the outside. I have looked up
> the HowTo's and did not find anything. The 2.2 kernel has something
> called policy routing. Would that be it? Any suggestions and help will
> be greatly appreciated.
I do not think it will work using source routing, altough I do not
excatly know it, because usally in this layer of networking the
MAC-adress the packet is sent from is allready trown away. A point pro
could be that the MAC is still there because of some optimization stuff
- one just do not need to reallocate it if it goes out to a
network-segment whose Level 2 header is less or equal in size.
A method that should work is to setup static ARP-entries on the gateway
for known IP-addresses and to deny all unknown source addresses. Denying
unknown addresses might still get complicated with ipfwadm but only if
you have other incoming rules for this interface (wildcards included)
up. ipchains as used in later 2.1.x and 2.2.x kernels does no longer
contain this restriction.
Sample:
IP address HW address dev
192.168.1.1 00:00:00:00:00:01 eth0
192.168.1.2 00:00:00:00:00:02 eth0
192.168.1.254 n/a (the router itself)
These are the only IP addresses known on this net.
The following command do the stuff:
arp -i eth0 -s 192.168.1.1 00:00:00:00:00:01
arp -i eth0 -s 192.168.1.2 00:00:00:00:00:02
ipfwadm -I -a accept -S 192.168.1.1/32 -i eth0
ipfwadm -I -a accept -S 192.168.1.2/32 -i eth0
ipfwadm -I -p deny
Malware
------------------------------
From: "Guy A. Wadsworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.sys.sun.admin,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.win95
Subject: Re: Connect without hub
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:08:20 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Gress wrote:
>
> If the machines are connected direct, there cannot be any collisions. Two wires
> are for transmit and two wires are for receive. This is why you need a crossover
> in the wires. So the computers can be connected:
>
> Computer "A" Computer "B"
>
> Xmit --------------->Rec
> Rec--------------->Xmit
>
> There cannot be a collision. One computer the Xmit is connected directly to the
> Rec and the Rec is connected directly to the Xmit.
>
> With a Hub, all the Xmit's are connected on the same side, and all the Rec's are
> connected on the same side. It's up to the Hub to allow only one Xmit or Rec at
> a time between one set of computers. If two sets of computers try to communicate
> to the same computer at the same time, there is a possibility of a collision.
>
Sorry, this is not how it works. The only situation where there are no
collisions
in an ethernet network is on a full duplex link, where collisions don't
happen by
definition. In the case of a half duplex connection, every end station
will have
both a transmitter and a receiver. When an end station wants to
transmit, it listens
on the receiver and will wait until no activity is being received. It
will then
transmit. Because it takes a finite amount of time to reach the most
distant end
station allowed by the standard, more than one station in a network can
start
transmitting at about the same time, both thinking that there is no
activity on
the network. So, any station that transmits also must listen while it
is transmitting
to determine if a collision has happend. I don't have my spec handy,
but if memory
serves me correctly in a properly functioning ethernet network, if a
collision is
going to happen, it will happen within the first 512 bit times of a
packet. This is
also the minimum size packet, guarenteeing that if a collision is going
to happen,
it will be seen by all end stations while they are still transmitting.
Otherwise,
end stations would not be guarenteed to detect a collision. There is
nothing in an
ethernet packet that allows signaling in band that a collision has
happend. The only
way to determine that a collision has happend is for the end station to
see that there
is activity on both the transmitter and the receiver at the same time.
It will then
back off and wait for a random amount of time, listen for activity, and
if none is
detected, try to transmit once again. One of the main functions of a
repeater hub
is to recognize that a collision is happening on one or more of its
ports (since any port
on a hub also has both a transmitter and a receiver) and to guarentee
that every
port has activity forced onto it (called jamming) so that the collision
is guarenteed
to be seen by any transmitting end station. Since the jamming function
is also
guarenteed to corrupt the repeated packets and cause a CRC error, any
endstation
that is not transmitting but still receives the packet will throw it
away since it
has bad CRC. This is a rather long winded explanation of how collsions
work, and
doesn't even go into as much detail as needed to really understand how
they work.
Bottom line is, two stations connected by only a crossover cable can
collide, although
probably not very often.
Hubs detect when collsions are happening, but the only way they signal
that a collsion
is happening in the network is to force a jam transmission on every port
to guarentee
that end stations that are transmitting see the collision by detecting
simultaneous
transmit and receive activity.
Guy.
------------------------------
From: Bernardo Santos Wernesback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Login as root with telnet
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:48:11 -0200
Hi everyone,
I would like to receive information on this too.
Thanks in advance,
Bernardo Santos Wernesback
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Ledford wrote:
> I have a very annoying problem with my Linux (RH 5.1) setup at home. I
> have setup an old PC as a print server/internet gateway. It is headless
> (ie. no monitor) and I was planning on managing it across my LAN by
> simply telnet'ing into the thing. Well, telnet works just fine but my
> login as root is rejected every time. I can log in as one of the user
> accounts I set up and I can then 'su' to root but this is flat out
> annoying. What do I need to change on the box in order to enable root
> login over telnet?
------------------------------
From: "MrCyber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux,comp.security.unix,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Hi,
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:43:26 +0100
Jan Stifter wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>you may want to take a look at SATAN: System Administrator Tool for
>Analyzing Network
>
Where can this program be found ?? I am very interested in it too !
Grtz,
MrCyber
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ppp-on doesn't respond
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:25:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I discovered my mistake. Where it says
'OK-+++\c-OK' ATH0 &K3 E1 Q0 S0=0 &C1 &S0 \
it should say
'OK-+++\c-OK' 'ATH0 &K3 E1 Q0 S0=0 &C1 &S0 '\
The tick marks around the modem init string need to be there.
Now my modem will dial.
> exec /usr/sbin/chat -v \
> TIMEOUT 3 \
> ABORT '\nBUSY\r' \ \
> ABORT '\nNO ANSWER\r' \ \
> ABORT '\nRINGING\r\n\r\nRINGING\r' \ \
> '' \rAT \\
> 'OK-+++\c-OK' ATH0 &K3 E1 Q0 S0=0 &C1 &S0 \ \
> TIMEOUT 60 \\
> OK ATDT$TELEPHONE \ \
> CONNECT '' \\
> agon--agon ppp \
Jeff M.
------------------------------
From: "Mode Mungert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Where can I get documentation to help set an internet connection in Linux
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:37:12 -0000
Does anyone know where I can get help with setting up an internet
connection in Linux. I have networked some PC's using Linux but I
don't know how to configure my modem or get/dial an IP address over the
internet. I have a Tashika modem with a Rockwell 97 chipset. It
uses Irq3 and Comm 3 in windows 95.
Many Thanks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mark Vandersteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2 modems one connection
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:56:50 +1030
You can use EQL there is a HOWTO on it, but your ISP with have to support it
as well.
Mark Vandersteen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Powered by Linux ! Obsessed with women !
The thoughts here are not necessariy mine !
Your Name wrote in message <7833lo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I was wondering how I would go about using two mdoems, connecting them to
>the same isp and evenly distributing the bandwidth between the two of them.
>tortexbigfoot.com
>-AL
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:25:15 +0000
Keith Peterson wrote:
>
> >Like I said, your PCMCIA card working, in my experience, is a rearity,
> >in Windows or any other system. If you absolutely need PCMCIA and
> >Windows does it for you, I'm glad, however, I can tell you nightmares
> >about PCMCIA network cards and modems on Windows 95 that will amaze you.
>
> My personal experience doesn't quite match this. I spent five and a half
> years doing retail break/fix, configuration and software support. I've seen
> PCMCIA work as advertised on hundreds of machines, on several different
> platforms (Mac versions worked okay as well). I've seen it fail dozens of
> times.
>
> But overall, it's worked probably 85% of the time for me. That number is
> just a guess, but it shouldn't be too far off. Before the advent of Windows
> 95, however, it was a disaster.
This is a debate about personal experience, you can not argue with me
and I can not argue with you about what we have experienced.
Yes, DOS was a disaster, card services use so much memory that once you
did get a card working, you were unlikely to run a program that could
use it. PCMCIA started out as a ram card device, and they turned it into
a general purpose IO system. I really don't like PCMCIA, the cards break
all the time, they are so cheap that on modems the silly little plastic
phone connecter breaks, and the netwrok cards usually split or the
interface plug breaks off. The form factor and the bus were not designed
to do what people are doing with it. Don't get me started, I spent
months dealing with the likes of SystemSoft and PCMCIA, not fond
memories.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Terra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:21:27 GMT
I have a few winblows boxes (win95,win98 & winnt) ... and guess what ..
None of them have pop mail included
None of them have a proxy server included
None of them have a firewall included
None of them have a router included
None of them are FREE
None of them are as stable
The sheer number of postings here reflect the fexability of Linux in
networking, not poor performance. ANY OS can do file sharing ... who cares
about that? I want a secure simple Internet server, pop mail server,
firewall, and router in one package. I have all of these services running
well on a 486sx 33Mhz Gateway with 16mb of memory! Try and get NT to do
that.
I love the windows boxes I have, I still use them for my main OS, but for
Internet, Intranet, and routing applications .. I think it is well worth
your time to look at Linux. Only wish MS made FrontPage extensions for
Linux.
But again, thats my perspective...
Iain Chalmers wrote in message ...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (j) wrote:
>
>> The sheer number of messages posted here - usually half going
>> unanswered - tells the tale ... Linux networking sucks.
>
>I don't think this is entirely true (but I can see where your argument is
>coming from)
>
>>
>> Now you can take your Winders, add in file-sharing in just a
>> couple of minutes, bring up your Winders workstations and
>> locate and link in within just another few minutes. Easy.
>> Quick. Relatively painless. Not the Linux way ...
>
>No, its not "the Linux Way"
>
>>
>> Now you may try to defend Linux by saying that it has more
>> "flexibility" - but quite frankly we could do with a lot
>> less "flexibility" and a lot more simplicity. I'll bet
>> that 95% of users just want to tie into a local NT server
>> or use Linux AS a file/print server for Winders PCs.
>
>And thats why its not the linux way.
>If all you want is to connect to your NT box then yes, its easy with
Windows.
>
>*BUT*
>
>Lets take a look at some of the messages passing thru here lately:
>
>IP_Forwarding w/RH5.2
>High Avaliability Architect for Auspex
>ip masq... client ping timeout
>AOL with IPmasq
>Sendmail is running, so why the download error?
>IP Accounting with IPCHAINS
>Local DNS
>IP over SCSI ?
>Two IP addresses to the same Ethernet card
>IP/MAC routing
>
>These are _clearly_ not the sort of thing that yor "95% of users" are
>trying to do (and probably rightly so), but if they _do_ need to do some
>of this stuff, all of a sudden the point-and-click "solutions" and
>"wizards" don't look so useful.
>
>
>> I think that "flexibility" is just an excuse
>
>No, It is real - there are _lots_ of things that your average linux
>distibution does that a stock NT install doesn't, maybe even some stuff
>that an NT box _can't_ do. (thats at least true if you add "without
>spending lots of money on 3rd party software")
>
>> - a euphamism
>> for "a bunch of really unsophisticated little utilities
>> written with no real plan in mind by people with a fetish
>> for cryptic poorly-documented command-line parameters and
>> well-hidden config files".
>
>Or alternatively "a collection of brilliant solutions to individual
>problems that gifted people have solved themselves when they needed to,
>and although they mostly have real jobs and therefore don't have the
>support to build flashy gui's that chew up cpu time, or tech-writers on
>staff to write up professional documentation, they've selflessly chosen to
>share these solutions for free with anyone else who may find them useful"
>
>Its easy to look at most issues from both sides :-) The "truth" obviously
>lies somewhere in between.
>
>
>>As is, Linux is a user-UNfriendly
>> mirror of MSDOS - and that goes double for "connectivity" issues.
>
>Its never claimed to be "user-friendly", its "programmer-friendly".
>Its designed to let knowledgeable people do powerful things, not to stop
>uninformed doing from doing dumb things.
>
><-snip->
>
>
>>
>> Now you thought I was just gonna flame ... nope. I've been
>> relatively polite and realistic here.
>
>I'll admit, thats what I expected, but you do raise some vaild points.
>Linux is _not_ ready to be sold to consumers through retail appliance
>stores yet, and it may never be.
>
>> There are MANY issues
>> to address, MANY refinements to be made before Linux becomes
>> a really good option for administrators of small/medium networks.
>
>This point I don't agree with. Linux _IS_ a "really good" option, in fact
>(to steal Steve Jobs words), I'd say its "insanely great". The issue here
>is the "administrators of small/medium networks". The people in charge of
>many (?most?) small/medium networks don't really have the skills needed to
>"administer" them in the "system-administrator" meaning of the word.
>Windows is great in that it lets companies promote interested staff who
>are prepared to learn stuff for themselves to "administrator" roles for
>small networks - and many people do a really good job for their comanies
>in jobs like these (yup, I'm thinking of a few friends right now:-)
>
>*BUT*
>
>Would you want these people running an internet connected network with
>your personal or confidential information stored on or flowing over it?
>
>Firewalls, intellegent routing, ip masquerading, network security in
>general are not thing you pick up in PCWeek magazine, or get
>out-of-the-box on _ANY_ operating system (tho the freeBSD guys argue
>that:-).
>
>> As much as I dislike Winders, it's a positive relief to boot
>> back into it after fooling around for hours in vain with Linux.
>> Preferring Winders to ANYTHING ... IMHO that's a pretty severe
>> indictment.
>
>Check my headers - I'm posting from a Mac :-)
>My "small/medium network" consists of 17 Macs, 2 Windows machines and 4
>Linux boxes spread across 2 locations with redundant internet connections
>at one site. As much as I like Macs (a purely personal preference - lets
>not start _THAT_ platform war), Linux is the right choice for my
>webserver, my firewall, and my router. I wouldn't be able to sleep at
>night if I had to worry about providing those services on a Mac or a
>Wintel box. But Gimp is only "almost Photoshop" (no CMYK support???) and
>there's nothing I've seen approaching Dreamweaver and Fireworks for Linux.
>(yet :-)
>
>> Linux has been badly over-sold.
>
>Yes
>
>> If it weren't so
>> cheap it would be a rip-off ... a hobby OS masquerading as
>> the "real deal".
>
>No - It is the "real deal" for _some_ deals. A bulldozer is not a commuter
>car, but you can't build dams in a 3 door hatchback.
>
>People who love Linux love it almost as much as Mac users love their Macs.
>People who need Linux love it because of what it can do.
>Somehow the enthusiasm of the Linux crowd has made people think that Linux
>is ready to be used now as a mainstream desktop OS. Its not. But that
>doesn't mean its not really good at other things.
>
>At least thats my perspective - comments welcomed, platform wars
>>/dev/null, or dragged to the trash can, or something :-)
>
>Iain
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Benjohn007)
Subject: Re: AOL with IP masq
Date: 20 Jan 1999 00:33:09 GMT
i have it working, no special settings are required.
iam on aol 4.0, but i believe 30 worked for me also.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:31:21 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.networking, Darren Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>You know....I dont see what the point of these anti-Linux posts are.
I suspect some of it is because some people are insecure about Linux
starting to show some serious potential.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
To quote the well-known bowl of petunias: "Oh! No! Not again."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Subject: Re: Hubs
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:10:20 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.networking, "Tundra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>I have seen much discussion over appropriate Ethernet cards for linux;
>but little on hubs. Is this simply b/c the hub is not subject to the
>same concerns of operability with Linux?
Yes.
A hub isn't directly connected to the box, and hence doesn't require
the things which tend to prove problematic with Ethernet cards (like
drivers or IRQs).
I use a 3Com 8-port 10BaseT hub here, and it's fine. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
The Seminar for Time Travel will be held two weeks ago...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
