Linux-Networking Digest #954, Volume #9 Wed, 20 Jan 99 22:13:59 EST
Contents:
Re: Online with Linux (Richard Hector)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (Sam)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (Sam)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (Mike Marion)
Re: samba & win98 (Guido D)
Re: win98 and samba (Karl A. Krueger)
Re: SAMBA Linux to NT (David Kirkpatrick)
Re: IPX-Error starting mars netware server emulation (george m hoffman md)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (mlw)
Re: Changing printer share name? (Karl A. Krueger)
Re: diald and assigned IP (and ipfwadm?) (Lew Pitcher)
Re: AutoPPP and pppd server ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: samba & win98 (Dave Roznar)
Re: HELP: IBM ISA Token Ring 16/4 ("Christopher Cox")
Need SMBMOUNT! (Dave Roznar)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK ("Brent Metzler")
Re: Windows 95 and Linux Server? (Niels van Dijk)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (Bob Deep)
Re: dlink nics and linux (Larry Rivera)
Re: Connect without hub (Nico Kadel-Garcia)
Massaging & Compiling SLiRP (Karl A. Krueger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 01:13:59 +1300
From: Richard Hector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Online with Linux
Note: I missed the beginning of this thread, so I hope I'm not covering
old ground.
Gster wrote:
>
> Yep. Under windows this is com 1 so that would be /dev/ttySO.
>
> There is the Lucent modem on com2 /dev/ttyS1. This is an internal modem.
>
> I really can't figure out why I can't get the modem to work. When I run
> minicom it says there is no such file or dir /dev/modem, but the file is
> there.
>
Are you sure the Lucent internal modem isn't a "Winmodem"? If so, it
needs proprietary, Windows-only software to make it work, and will
therefore never work under Linux.
Unless, maybe, if you set up Wine, and ran the software under that? Just
a thought, I have never used Wine, and have absolutely no idea if it
would work. Even if it did, I suspect it would be horribly slow, and
demanding on your system.
Richard Hector
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:10:08 GMT
On 17 Jan 1999 20:57:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
Burg) wrote:
>>
>>With this kind of problems, on a stable release of the O/S, with a supported
>>product, it makes me really wonder
>>"Does LINUX SUCK ?"
>>
>>
>
>No, Linux doesn't suck.
>You just have no idea what you're doing.
Oh, I understand COLA now, if you have a problem with Windows it's the
operating system. if you have a problem with Linux it's the user.
Logical.
Sam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:04:58 GMT
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:19:43 +0000, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On the other hand, the install under WINDOWS 95 to about 2 mins, and
>> Everything Worked !!
>
>You are one of the lucky ones. I have never seen PCMCIA work correctly
>in Windows or any other system. If you say it does, I will believe you,
>but, usually, when people say they are having problems with PCMCIA, I
>think to myself, of course, what did you expect, it's PCMCIA.
What have you been smoking ?
I have never seen it not "work". We have hundreds of laptops at work,
they are all Windows95 and they all work using PCMCIA network cards
and sometimes modems.
Sam
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:21:55 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am asking for a system with more IQ build into it than what we have now.
> you want the same system. I want a smart system.
Hate to burst your bubble bob... but computers don't have an IQ at all. A
computer can only do what programmers have told it to do under a specific set
of circumstances. Go outside of those and the program can't just magically
figure out what you want. That's one reason for alpha and beta testing.. not
just to find errors, but find what people might try and then program reponses
for when they try it.
We won't have true "smart" systems until true Artificial Intelligence is
created.
> think at a higher level. dont have your mind closed and limited to only
> what we have today.
You slam on Unix and say it sucks without thinking about what it can be used
for and/or developed into in the future so why should anyone give you the
benefit of doing so for Windows?
In today's world Unix systems are more reliable, configurable, and portable
then windows... and I've never seen a thing that leads me to believe it'll be
much different in the future.
Sure, windows has more games and such, but that's because game companies had
no market in coding for Unix systems. In the case of Linux though, that's
changing.
Oh, and you do realize that there were Internet capable games (like Xpilot and
Xtrek) on Unix systems well before _any_ PC game was capable of it, right?
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Associate Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief.
They all kill their inspiration, and sing about the grief."
------------------------------
From: Guido D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: samba & win98
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 01:24:45 +0000
I did enable plain-passwords on win98 - didn't help.
I did setup encrypted passwords on samba - didn't help.
Looking into log.smb, I can see how win98 sends an
encrypted password, samba goes for checking, and fails.
I tried all the other recommended things, for days now.
It didn't help.
Can anyone post a good smb.conf (or a pointer to it)?
a file, so I can have samba and win98 conntected?
[or do I really have to get after samba 2.0??]
Thanks a lot.
-- guido
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:28:55 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl A. Krueger)
Subject: Re: win98 and samba
In article <IWqp2.9795$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Kyndig"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can anyone point me to how-to's, etc. for enabling encrypted passwords for
> SMB?
Try entering the following command:
zless /usr/doc/samba/ENCRYPTION.txt.gz
--
Karl A. Krueger
#include <disclaimer.h>
------------------------------
From: David Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SAMBA Linux to NT
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:26:26 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also look the additions which need to be made SEE: man smbpasswd
"Jack J. Woehr" wrote:
>
> Hmm ... Well, I'm logged on NT under the same name as one of the
> accounts on my Linux box ...
>
> "R.A. Wilson" wrote:
> >
> > I'm not an expert on SAMBA, but I do have it running on
> > my home LAN okay. The only time I have experienced the
> > problem you describe is when the name of the person
> > logged onto the Windows box does not match the name of
> > the person who owns the home directory on the Linux box.
> > maybe you could try "synchronizing" the names?
> >
> > r.a.wilson
> > =================================================================
> >
> > On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> >
> > > I've got SAMBA on RedHat 5.1 working, I can list files
> > > on the NT machine from Linux okay. But NT can't connect
> > > to any of the shares on Linux. NT keeps telling me that
> > > the user is not allowed to connect from that workstation.
> > >
> > > I've read the FAQ and tried every trick in the SAMBA
> > > configuration I can think of. Any tips, please? TIA.
>
> --
> Jack J. Woehr # The Drug War is Race War
> PO Box 51, Golden, CO 80402 # The Drug War is Class War.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] # The Drug War is Civil War.
> http://www.well.com/~jax/rcfb # Arrest the War on Drugs.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: george m hoffman md <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IPX-Error starting mars netware server emulation
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:27:03 -0600
type ifconfig to make sure you have ipx interfaces configured.
i think you can also get this if you reconfigured and had to do a
'network reload' with mars running.
I have found the ipx networking components of llinux and mars a little
bit unpredictable. I tried to use only specific frame type, but did
better setting ipx_autocofigure=on and letting mars automatically set up
all frame types.
--
George M Hoffman MD
Anesthesiology & Critical Care
Medical College of Wisconsin
Children's Hospital of Wisconsin
414-266-3388 (voice)
414-266-3563 (fax)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:47:26 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:10:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam) wrote:
>
> >Oh, I understand COLA now, if you have a problem with Windows it's the
> >operating system. if you have a problem with Linux it's the user.
> >
> >Logical.
Sometimes this crew gets a bit harsh, I don't understand it myself.
>
> That's what is disturbing me too. First:
> In the Linux community there are a lot of friendly, helpful people who like to
> help even a bloody beginner. This was the good news.
There are a few, yes ;)
>
> But: there are also lots of very arrogant individuals who think they are
> superior to the rest of the world, just because they know some tricks to make
> Linux run. I think this approach is not helpful to make Linux attractive to a
> newcomer, who mostly has lot of experience in other OS's, like Win95/98/NT.
Yes, there are a few of these as well. The Windows (9x and NT) advocacy
groups have their share as well. This is not an excuse, just a statement
of fact.
>
> BTW: the famous blue screen, that some Linux fans argue to show up 2 times a
> day, I have only seen 1 or 2 times in 3 years of NT experience.
Yes, it is not as frequent as some would like to believe, however, I
tend to get one once a week on my development system. NT 4.0 sp3.
>
> It's nice to know that a long-time Linux user can setup a system in one hour.
> But please accept that a long-time Windows user can do the same, and how long
> would you take to setup Windows with no (I mean NO) experience ?
Installing any operating system requires knowledge that the casual user
must learn to install. IMHO I do not think an operating system should be
installed by a casual user. If one thinks of an OS as the foundation for
how your computer works, then a casual user (one which does not intend
to do the homework) should not, for his/her own good, install it.
This not elitist in any way, it is just that some things require
judgment and planning. If one is not willing to educate themselves
enough to do this, up front, then all they can really do is get
themselves in trouble.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:34:13 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl A. Krueger)
Subject: Re: Changing printer share name?
In article <7avp2.59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm wondering if it's possible to change the share name of a Samba shared
> printer. I'm configuring several printers and would like to give them more
> user friendly names than lp, lp0, lp1 etc., but when I add a printer from a
> 95 client, those are the names I see.
Check /etc/printcap. If samba is sharing all available printers --- that
is, you have a [printers] share, but no *individual* printer shares ---
it's using names gleaned from /etc/printcap. Change the names there, and
you change the shared printer names.
--
Karl A. Krueger
#include <disclaimer.h>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lew Pitcher)
Subject: Re: diald and assigned IP (and ipfwadm?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:02:08 GMT
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:17:22 -0500, Peter W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Troutman wrote:
>
>> Also....when setting up rules in ipfwadm, it requires the ip of the
>> interface. When running pppd using a variable IP address, what is the
>> easiest way to get the info into IPFWADM?
>
>ipfwadm does NOT require your interface's IP address. Use the -W option, e.g.
>for SMTP
> ipfwadm -I -P tcp -a accept -W ppp0 -D 0.0.0.0/0 25
I'm playing with placing ipfwadm commands in the /etc/ppp/ip-up and /etc/ppp/ip-down
scripts, so as to be able to use the ppp0 "assigned IP address" in some of the rules.
So long as you document the location and use of the commands (for later reference),
I don't see why you can't use these scripts to enable/disable specific firewall
rules.
Lew Pitcher
System Consultant, Integration Solutions Architecture
Toronto Dominion Bank
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employer's.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: AutoPPP and pppd server
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:44:22 GMT
Hi,
Josh Gentry's article on this helps a lot. I forgot
the site though. You may try another article I've
seen lately on the January issue of the LinuxGazette
e-zine by Mr Hassan Ali,
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue36/ali.html
I'm trying it out tonight. Good luck!
Bud
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've installed Redhat 5.1 for use as a small dialup PPP server. Dialout
> PPP works fine, but inbound /AutoPPP/ calls will not stay connected. A
> Win95/Win98 caller can connect and log in, but immediately gets the
> dreaded "cannot negotiate a set of protocols" message. An OS/2 dialer
> gets similar results without the message.
>
> On the dialer side, TCP/IP is the only protocol requested. On the Linux
> side, mgetty takes the call and PAP validates the user successfully, but
> then the caller drops the session almost immediately. The Linux box is a
> standalone, not networked to anything else currently.
>
> /var/logs/messages says that CCP was terminated by the remote. Why
> is it giving up?
>
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Roznar)
Subject: Re: samba & win98
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:07:19 GMT
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 01:24:45 +0000, Guido D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I did enable plain-passwords on win98 - didn't help.
>I did setup encrypted passwords on samba - didn't help.
>Looking into log.smb, I can see how win98 sends an
>encrypted password, samba goes for checking, and fails.
>
>I tried all the other recommended things, for days now.
>It didn't help.
>
>Can anyone post a good smb.conf (or a pointer to it)?
>a file, so I can have samba and win98 conntected?
>[or do I really have to get after samba 2.0??]
>
>Thanks a lot.
>-- guido
I finally did it with Win98, Redhat5.2 and Samba 2.0.0...using
encrypted passwords. I went to the txt docs and looked at the
diagnosis.txt file. All the tests sort of worked. When I accessed the
machines the passwords worked, but when I tried special directories
they didn't.
You know what was wrong? Look in your smbpasswd file... After the user
name it gives the encrypted password. the 5th : delimited field was
[DU ] all the others, where I did not set a password were
[U ] Well you get the idea!
ie: after I did a smbpasswd username, and entered the password(twice)
the file had a D (for disable) so I deleted the D and all suddenly
worked!
============================================
Dave Roznar - W6TGE
Portland, OR
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web-site http://members.home.net/droznar
============================================
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HELP: IBM ISA Token Ring 16/4
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:49:18 GMT
>
> If a loopback connector is necessary, what is the pinage so I can build
> one?
>
Paperclips stuck in 1-6 and 5-9 will work in a pinch...:-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Roznar)
Subject: Need SMBMOUNT!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:14:09 GMT
Ok, this is stupid! I have everything working. Encrypted passwords,
win98,redhat 5.2, and Samba 2.0.0. GREAT. So, where is smbmount!! I
did not compile Samba, but used the RedHat RPMS for Appolo from the
Samba site.
I can see everything from the Linux box and the Win98 box, but want to
be able to MOUNT (SMBMOUNT, I guess) from Linux.
So, how do I do it if I don't have SMBMOUNT.
I tried the command that gives a
smb> prompt but that's like FTP ...actually ALOT like ftp!
Thanks all,
Dave
============================================
Dave Roznar - W6TGE
Portland, OR
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web-site http://members.home.net/droznar
============================================
------------------------------
From: "Brent Metzler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:34:35 -0600
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>On 17 Jan 1999 20:57:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
>Burg) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>With this kind of problems, on a stable release of the O/S, with a
supported
>>>product, it makes me really wonder
>>>"Does LINUX SUCK ?"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, Linux doesn't suck.
>>You just have no idea what you're doing.
>
>Oh, I understand COLA now, if you have a problem with Windows it's the
>operating system. if you have a problem with Linux it's the user.
>
Windows is *so* user friendly that even a user isn't supposed to be able to
"hurt" it. Linux, on the other hand, is so powerful that it requires you to
know what is going on if you intend to administer it. If you try to
administer it without knowing what's going on, then all the problems are
your fault. So you just need to learn more about the system then.
-Brent
------------------------------
From: niels@###vr.nl (Niels van Dijk)
Subject: Re: Windows 95 and Linux Server?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:28:07 GMT
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:07:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allen
Beddingfield) wrote:
>I am considering replacing a Netware server with a Linux server.
>However, I still want my Windows 95 machines to ask for a network
>username and password as they do with the Novell Netware Client before
>logging into the server. Is this possible?
>
>Please keep in mind that I have limited experience with Linux, most of
>my experience is with Netware.
>Thanks in advance for your help.
>
>Please e-mail your replys to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Allen B.
Yes, you can do this with SAMBA (www.samba.org) using roving profiles.
grtz,
Niels
------------------------------
From: Bob Deep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:05:06 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It's nice to know that a long-time Linux user can setup a system in one hour.
> But please accept that a long-time Windows user can do the same, and how long
> would you take to setup Windows with no (I mean NO) experience ?
>
Well.. I can tell you that installing W95-OSR2 from scratch was not an
easy task even with boatloads of experience with installing Dos and
W3.1...
Start with a clean machine that cannot boot from the CD... See how long
it takes to figure out how to get W95 to get started. I dare say that
99 out of 100 folks who have experience with windows 3.1 and Dos will
never figure it out... Not that I'm so smart, I just got lucky.... See
the problem is this... The W95 install program always runs scandisk
first, and Scandisk requires a high memory driver TSR to be installed.
This is generally not a problem on an existing Dos box, but on a clean
machine, where all you have is the boot floppy and the CD Rom, good luck
finding a High memory driver, there is not one anywhere...
There is one program on the CD, that is a TSR memory manager... But you
will find absolutly no informatio about it in the install manual, any
readme file and the file name is not something that jumps out at you
either.
At least with a linux distribution you have a hope of being able to
figure out how to do things because the instructions are usually
included. Every thing you need is usually on the disk, clearly marked
and ready for use.
In my experience, W95 took me just about as long to install as my first
Linux install, and I had installed countless M$ products in the past and
only a minimual exposure to Unix from a user level. The Windows install
was more frustrating too...
I now know that Windows installs much easier if you can boot from the
CD, but hey, so does linux. I just did not have that situation before
me at either time.
-= bob =-
------------------------------
From: Larry Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: dlink nics and linux
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:03:36 -0400
Jim Watters wrote:
>
> Hello
> I am new to linux and have just installed Calder OpenLinux base 1.1
> During install linux doesn't detect my dlink 530CT+ or my dlinkT+. Dlink
> doesn't seam to have any support for linux on the web. If you have any
> idea where i can find some drivers so these cards will work in linux i
> would appreciate it.
> thanks
> jim
You need the tulip.c module. Look around this news site there are many
references to it as DEC 21040/41, etc. or something like that
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nico Kadel-Garcia)
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 14:37:10 GMT
On 19 Jan 1999 23:40:39 GMT, Chris Cappuccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
No. You cannot "collide" packets on a single segment of 10BaseT: one wire
carries the signal in one direction, the other wire carries signals
in the *other* direction. It is when you have to mix the signals together
to multiple receivers that the hub or repeater if you're cheap has to
say "the receivers are busy getting the previous packet, please wait".
Now, a *switched* hub will be much more careful not to send packets
to people who don't want them, and thus preserve your bandwidth. But
they cost a hell of a lot more, and people are *very* careless about their
names and labels for switches, repeaters, hubs, gateways, routers, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:45:35 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl A. Krueger)
Crossposted-To: linux.help,linux.debian.user,linux.dev.newbie
Subject: Massaging & Compiling SLiRP
I'm having a good deal of trouble getting SLiRP to compile under Debian
2.0. I'm using the slirp-1.0c source code, available from
blitzen.canberra.edu.au, under /pub/slirp. configure runs fine; but when
attempting to actually make the binary, I get a stream of errors.
The first:
gcc -I. -I. -DUSE_PPP -g -O -O2 -c ./ppp/pppdfncs.c
In file included from slirp.h:264,
from ppp/ppp.h:27,
from ppp/pppd.h:29,
from ./ppp/pppdfncs.c:39:
ppp.p:21: conflicting types for `logwtmp'
/usr/include/utmp.h:53: previous declaration of `logwtmp'
make: *** [pppdfncs.o] Error 1
Now, ppp.p is nothing but prototypes, so I commented out line 21, which
was just a prototype for logwtmp. making clean, then making again yields:
gcc -I. -I. -DUSE_PPP -g -O -O2 -Wall -Wno-implicit -Wmissing-prototypes -c ./p
pp.c
./ppp.c:863: conflicting types for `logwtmp'
/usr/include/utmp.h:53: previous declaration of `logwtmp'
make: *** [ppp.o] Error 1
This is indeed suspicious. Why would ppp.c be redefining a function which
already exists in the libraries? Upon investigation, it seems that ppp.c
defines logwtmp to be a pretty boring function; all it does is return 1.
I suppose it's trying to override the function in order to get some old
code to not use wtmp. But gcc doesn't want to comply.
Commenting out ppp.c's copy of logwtmp (or commenting out the one in
utmp.h) gets ppp.c to compile, but next main.c won't compile; some struct
variables are being redefined. And so it goes. Voluminous details
available upon request.
So ... has anyone successfully massaged the SLiRP source to get it to
compile under a modern Linux? Mind sharing your hints or patches? Has
anyone picked SLiRP up where Dan Gasparovski left it off three years ago?
Has anyone (for that matter) a good replacement for SLiRP's functionality?
Please reply to me as well as to the newsgroup, just in case I miss the
post --- the wizvax news server sometimes expires things incredibly
quickly. I'll summarize any email responses I get which work.
Thanks in advance for any help.
--
Karl A. Krueger
#include <disclaimer.h>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
