Linux-Networking Digest #41, Volume #10 Fri, 29 Jan 99 07:13:39 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (fwd) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LINUX PPP on a SPARC10 (Bill Unruh)
Re: 2 Intel Ether Express 16 Cards? (MR)
FOXPRO unix under linux (Max Jerome)
ip masquearding and ftp (d75)
Re: network card. (Haaino Beljaars)
Multidrop Mail Software ("Tom Furie")
Re: realaudio heavy CPU loading (Marc Jauvin)
Routing with 3 network cards ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: trouble with ppp and PAP ("Jonas")
ICQ on a Lan? (James Ho)
Re: DNS type question. ("Willem")
100MBit ethernet PCI card RealTek 8139 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (fwd)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:25:56 GMT
I absolutely agree. I myself do not like Windoze for 1 main reason. Its lack
of robustness. Windoze doesnt even come close to Linux at all in terms of
robustness. There a couple of times when I was typing a document in MSWord,
and I was 'copying and pasting' from Excel, powerpoint, and other
applications, and then suddenly the whole machine freezed. Cant run anything,
can even kill any application. Do a Alt-Cntr-Del, nothing happened. I have no
choice but to hit the reset button. Hey, I am talking about a Pentium II,
400 Mhz, 128Megs, Windozzze NT 4.0 with latest service pack here! I have no
idea what had happened, but all i know was Windozze just crashed and all my
work was down the drain. If u r in that position, u will release how much u
hate Wondoze. This is just 1 case. There are endless number of cases where
windoze crashed for no reasons.
I suppose this guy who likes so much abt windoze so much, doesnt mind
rebooting his machine a couple of times a day, and doesnt mind spending time
retyping what he just did for the past hour or so.
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.990121224019.15143A-100000@admiral>,
Jon Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I take serious issue with this message for it's lack of merit. *ANY* OS
> is going to have its fair share of problems and issues. He makes it
> sound like Win95/98/NT are completely free of issues, that configuring
> them for anything that he might want them to do is painless, and that
> they never do anything unexpected or fail in the slightest. This cannot
> be any further from the truth. Win95/98/NT have their issues. One of
> them is stability. Another is the lack of decent administrative tools.
> Now it sounds like this guy does not like command-line configuration.
> Might I introduce him to a wonderful company callled Red Hat Softtware?
> What a concept! Graphical configuration tools for Linux that will do
> most everything that a novice user/admin would need to do! These tools
> fall far short of what their command line equivalants can do, but they're
> there and they work. Once you actually get networking working, you can
> install a wonderful utility called Webmin, which allows you to administer
> the machine from any machine connected to the network. Now if this
> machine is connected to the Internet, the possibilities are endless. Say
> a user forgets his password. With NT, you have to buy expensive software
> such as pcAnywhere, Carbon Copy, or something of the like to take remote
> control of the local keyboard and mouse. With Linux with Webmin, you
> have two options: you can either telnet to the machine, su to root and
> change the password, OR you can change the password with Webmin (assuming
> that you can't type "passwd <user>", Webmin might be the better route).
> The former is a text-based way, and the quickest way to do that. With
> the latter, you have to fire up a browser, point to the remote host and
> port, type in the username and password, wait for all the pretty pictures
> to load, click on the appropiate option, click on the appropiate user,
> then change the radio button to "Plain Text", then type the password and
> press OK. Which one of these sounds easier (not to mention more secure,
> you could use ssh for the remote shell connection)?
>
> As for the argument that you can't just install Linux and make it work in
> twenty miniutes: Windows was designed for no-brainer idiots to install
> and configure. A Linux distribution can be made much the same - example
> Caldera OpenLinux, Red Hat, etc. Generally, if a business wants to use
> Linux, they will hire or already have a competent administrator for the
> system. I *do not* advocate Linux as an end-user computing platform,
> outside of the technical community. This is because of the amount of
> training/trial and error, whatever, required for someone that I can hire
> off the street to get working correctly and maintain. However, for the
> aforementioned reasons and many more, Linux makes an excellent server
> platform. It is reliable, robust, and can do just about anything.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 21 JAN 1999 14:41:49 -0500
> From: John Wolanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newgroups: comp.os.linux.networking
> Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ?
>
> Funny thing about this is, if it wasn't for Linux his post probably
> wouldn't even be gracing this newsgroup with it's presence right
> now....hell, he probably wouldn't even be online!
>
> I especially liked the one about getting past the bugaboos of DOS being
> the only thing Linux has going for it...LOL!
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (j)
> > The sheer number of messages posted here - usually half going
> > unanswered - tells the tale ... Linux networking sucks.
> > 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 ...
> > 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.
> > I think that "flexibility" is just an excuse - 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". As is, Linux is a user-UNfriendly
> > mirror of MSDOS - and that goes double for "connectivity" issues.
> > Want cheap PC networking & connectivity ? One "L" word comes
> > to mind and it's NOT "Linux" - try "LanTastic" instead.
> > Now Linux IS relatively compact and fast and DOES get past
> > some of the old buggaboos inherent to DOS-derived systems,
> > but Linux just isn't "ripe" yet. It needs DUN boxes and
> > "Network" panels which HELP you with things and show all
> > the pertinent options and conflicts right there.
> > Someone could make a LOT of money if they could put together
> > a turn-key Linux-based file/print server package which could
> > autoconfigure most things and be really easy and helpful on
> > the rest. Something you take out of the box and 20 minutes
> > later you have a good working server. You can do that with
> > Winders, but not with Linux unless you apparently have put
> > in a tremendous number of obsessive hours.
> > Now you thought I was just gonna flame ... nope. I've been
> > relatively polite and realistic here. There are MANY issues
> > to address, MANY refinements to be made before Linux becomes
> > a really good option for administrators of small/medium networks.
> > 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. Linux has been badly over-sold. If it weren't so
> > cheap it would be a rip-off ... a hobby OS masquerading as
> > the "real deal".
>
> --
> -John Wolanski
> Remove the "_removethis" from my email address to reply.
>
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.protocols.ppp,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: LINUX PPP on a SPARC10
Date: 28 Jan 1999 17:45:34 GMT
In <78pjaf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Duncan Simpson) writes:
>>Most ISPs do NOT want you to do that if you're using PPP. Instead,
>>they want you to just dial in and start using PPP, since that's what
>>Windoze does. If you start chatting a user name at them, then they'll
>>usually assume you don't speak PPP.
BoISP'a are all over the place on what they want you to do to log on.
PPP was supposed to have an advantage over slip in making configuration
easy. However this has been negated by the variety of user authorisation
procedures.
login first, ppp automatic
login first then run ppp
login first then run pppd
All of the above and then have ppp use PAP authorisation or CHAP
authorisation
And each ISP has a different prompt for logging in
login: password:
Login: Password:
Username: Password:
Username: Secret:
...
And then there are those who demand that ppp be run right after the
connection is made.
No wonder users tear their hair out.
B
B
B
B
B
>Apparently all livingston portmasters have been wiped off the face of
>the earth from this statements about most ISPs. Muy ISP uses
>livingston portmasters and the appropiate chat-up line is
><dail up my ISP with AT commands>
>ogin: me
>ssword: secret
>and then hit PPP mode. Demon internet, the largest ISP in the UK, wants
><dail up demon internet with AT commands>
>oign: you
>ssword: password
>ocol: ppp
>and then hit PPP mode. At one time my ISP wanted you to authenticate
>yourself with PAP after seeing the connect message. Windows has its
>own equivilent of chat but it is more interactive, disguised and less
>well documented. Personally I could all 3 as disadvantages---requiring
>me to bring up a terminal windows and retype my name and ssword every
>time I connect is a pain.
>Duncan (-:
>--
>Duncan (-:
------------------------------
From: MR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2 Intel Ether Express 16 Cards?
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:33:59 -0800
Hamlet wrote:
> MR wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >OK, I am using RedHat 5.2. I have two Intel Ether Express cards set up
> >with different configurations (0x300, irq 11 and 0x270, irq 10). I am
> >trying to set the first one to eth0 and the second to eth1 through the
> >eexpress module. On bootup, it picks up the first card just fine and
> >sets eth0 to it, but it says something similiar to the effect that it is
> >delaying eth1 (?). And eth1 never gets set to the 2nd card. My
> >/etc/conf.modules is:
> >
> >alias eth0 eexpress
> >alias eth1 eexpress
> >options eexpress io=0x300,0x270 irq=11,10
> >
> >Any ideas?? Thanks!
> >
> >-Matt
> >
>
> I think you have to enter some parameters at boot time (LILO)
> try this:
> boot: Linux ether=0,0,eth1
>
> and see if it detects your card. If it does you can add this line to your
> lilo.conf:
>
> append="ether=0,0,eth1"
>
> Good Luck !
I still get a "Delaying eth1 Initilization" right after it picks up the first
card.. I tried also pointing out its io and irq on the ether= line to no
avail. Think it will work if I compile the ethernet card driver into the
kernel?
-Matt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Max Jerome )
Subject: FOXPRO unix under linux
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:52:29 GMT
I have posted a document on my website explaining the procedure to get
foxpro unix going under linux, it is at
spot2000.home.mindspring.com/fplinux.html
Please e-mail me at the address on the site and let me know If you
were able to get the document and if you were able to get it going and
any questions, suggestions, comments or hints that you find out.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (d75)
Subject: ip masquearding and ftp
Reply-To: d75
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:58:12 GMT
I've got IP masquerading set up on my 486 running slack3.2 with all
the appropropriate ip_masq modules patches installed. From my NT box
on the masqueraded side of the Linux box I've been experiencing
trouble ftp'ing - it appears to connect alright and some sites work
fine - others log and sit there after logging in and the connection
times out as I wait for a diretory listing. I suspect part of the
problem may have to do with connecting to non-standard ftp ports on
remote hosts from teh NT box - it works fine from the linux box. Has
anyone experienced this or know of a workaround? any suggestions
would be apprecieated.
D.
------------------------------
From: Haaino Beljaars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: network card.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:12:45 +0100
Hi,
> > I want to buy a network card in the near future. It must be a PCI card
> > with a UTP connection for a 10Mb network. Which card should I buy? So I
> > thought about a 3C900, but I can't find any module that corresponse with
> > that card. Which module should I use for a 3C900? Or should I buy an
> > other card?
>
> My 3c905B (Boomerang) card is recognized just fine by Linux. It uses the
> 3c59x.c driver. Check out
> http://cesdis.nsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/vortex.html for more info.
If I checked correctly. I don't have to comple the 3c59c.x driver, because
I use RH 5.2 and this version already supports the 90x series? Do I
understand correctly?
I have tried to compile the 3c59x.c file, but there were a lot of errors.
How do I compile this 'c' file? Which options should I use? I cannpt find
any references for this. (and yes, I am a newbie at this)
Greetings from Haaino Beljaars
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: HTTP://www.phys.uu.nl/~beljaars/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Furie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Multidrop Mail Software
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:27:21 -0000
Hi there,
I am looking for some software that will allow me to pick up mail for
multiple accounts on a Linux box from a single POP account.
I looked at Fetchmail, but the documentation advises against using Fetchmail
for this purpose. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what other
packages might offer what I am looking for?
Cheers,
Tom
------------------------------
From: Marc Jauvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: realaudio heavy CPU loading
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:14:29 -0500
Eric Potter wrote:
>
> Kelvin Leung enlightened this group thus:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I got my RH 5.2 running with Ensoniq PCI sound card. I have the alsa
> > sound driver works fine. Both X11amp and Realaudio can produce sound
> > out. But the RealAudio heavily load my CPU (K6-166 overclocked to 200).
> > The audio is interrupted everytime I change to another window , or
> > browsing within Netscape. I got the CPU load monitor fire up and it
> > seems the CPU is fully occupied! I don't think it's the CPU problem 'cos
> > I don't have problem with X11amp, also the Realaudio (not G2) in Windows
> > in the same machine. Is that a fact or just my system doing weird!?
> >
> > Kelvin
>
> The sound driver in the 2.2.0 kernel performs much better. The problem with
> interruptions when switching between windows has been pretty much eliminated.
I tried the sound driver of the 2.2.0 kernel with my Ensoniq PCI and I get poor
sound (with play command) and Realaudio does not work at all (cannot write to
the /dev/dsp or /dev/audio error message). I am running RedHat 5.2 with the
alsa drivers (kernel 2.2.0) and it works very well (except for the interuptions
that were described above).
-- marc
Pet Store: "Buy one, get one flea."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Routing with 3 network cards
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:48:51 GMT
Hi,
I have come up on a unique problem (one that I haven't come up against
anyways). I have a machine that I would like to have 3 NIC's in with
firewalling and masquerading enabled (port forwarding too via the patch
for 2.0.36 on ipportfw).
Here is the situation.
eth0 -> DHCP (cable modem connection)
eth1 -> ISDN (dedicated static ip address)
eth2 -> Internal lan (dedicated ip)
Now what happens is that I have the cable modem connection for having
users surfing from the desktop. No big deal I have this working flawlessly
at home and at other locations. (this is to be the 'default route')
eth2 -> It is just going to be 10.0.0.x with a dhcp server giving out ip
addresses on the internal lan.
The problem comes with eth1. Eth1 has a static IP address for mail/web
services. But I am running email on Exchange (yeah I know I would rather
use linux, but this is the way it has to be). So I have the firewall setup
to 'forward' the packets into the exchange server (on the internal lan).
Now what happens is that when the exchange server replies, it goes through
the default gateway (ie cable modem instead of ISDN connection).
Once solution is to have 2 firewalls, but with my limited knowledge of
routing under such circumstances, I would like to believe that it can
be done with one machine and 3 NIC's.
Has anyone got any suggestions? or am I going to be stuck with 2 firewalls?
Thanks,
Chris
+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| Chris Yeo | URL: http://www.biking.org |
| Computer Consultant | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: "Jonas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: trouble with ppp and PAP
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:43:33 +0100
Thanks! Now it works great.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Ho)
Subject: ICQ on a Lan?
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 02:11:38 GMT
Just curious, is there a way to get ICQ to work on a LAN withou
internet connection? Would I have to set up a local Icq server for
it? (is there such thing??)
Thanks.
James.
------------------------------
From: "Willem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DNS type question.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:42:32 +0100
>I was wondering if this is possible. I am lookuing for a product that
>can access as a caching DNS server that does not have authority over a
>domain but just to save network traffic.
Read the DNS-(mini-)HOWTO, it's perfectly described there how to set up a
caching dns server.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: 100MBit ethernet PCI card RealTek 8139
Date: 29 Jan 1999 11:12:01 GMT
Hello,
I have a problem with a RealTek 8139 PCI Ethernet Card. At first Step
I say, that my English is not very well, and I hope you will excuse
this.
My two computer (a workstation with QDI brilliant IV Motherboard with
on board LAN adapter build on Intel's 82558 chipset and the name WORK1
works under Windows NT Workstation; the server with an Asus board, AMD
K6 and two network cards (PCI RealTek 8139 and ISA 3c509B) with the
name: SERVER2 works with Linux Kernel 2.0.35 (German distribution
S.u.S.E 5.3)) are connected via a crosscable. Both ethernet cards
(Intel's 82558 and RealTek's 8139) are 100MBit types. But in my case
they works in most times with slower speed. Only with the following
sequence, I can tell the RealTek to operate with 100MBit.
1.) Both computers are turned off.
2.) Turn on WORK1. Wait until the network is initialisieced. Note:
This only works, if in the networkcard settings is specified, that the
mode which shall be used, is 100MBit half-duplex.
3.) Turn on SERVER2.
Only with this sequence, I have between WORK1 and SERVER2 a 100MBit
connection.
My question is now:
With witch option/patch can I reach the goal, that the RealTek works
always in 100MBit half-duplex mode. The RealTek must work with 100MBit
half-duplex or don't work.
Thanks for helping.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
