Linux-Networking Digest #784, Volume #11 Sun, 4 Jul 99 23:13:41 EDT
Contents:
Re: SMB services stopped working. (Malware)
Re: DNS problem ("Jim_Alvarez")
Re: FTP and IPchains\Masquerading ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A simple one... (DL)
Re: OK - I GIVE UP! - can't give users ftp access!!!!???? (Bob)
eth0 default interface - eth1 can't be used (Richard B. Parry)
Re: DNS problem ("Kris Jordan")
Re: Apache setup question (L J Bayuk)
Re: Want network file server - not internet ("John Hardin")
Re: Are NetGear cards supported under Linux? ("John Hardin")
Re: please advise how linux gateway on nt network ("John Hardin")
Re: Kernel 2.2.10 + VPN ("John Hardin")
Remote Access Server, etc........ (Chuck Snively)
Re: pppd scripting and diald (David Efflandt)
Re: Could Microsoft Cheat On The New Mindcraft Benchmark? (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Question (David Efflandt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Malware <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMB services stopped working.
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 00:21:55 +0200
Hi Denning,
you wrote:
> A look at /var/log/samba/log.smb yields this:
>
> [1999/07/03 20:52:22, 0] lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_in(671)
> bind failed on port 139 socket_addr=0.0.0.0 (Address already in
> use)
Somebody else is allready listening on this port. One possiblity is
inetd. Look into /etc/inetd.conf if there is an entry for "netbios-ssn"
and if so comment it out.
Malware
------------------------------
From: "Jim_Alvarez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DNS problem
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:33:39 -0700
If I remember correctly this has something to do with the "etc/host.conf"
the it should say;
order hosts,bind
multi on
also check your "/etc/resolv.conf"
search localhost should be first.
I hope this helps!
Kris Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7lolg7$f82$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is there a way to keep DNS from causing the modem to dial out. I'm using
> demand dialing. DNS keeps the modem up constantly, every time it times out
> and disconnects, it causes it to connect again. It even causes it to dial
> when I'm using local address to my network. I have each of my machines in
> the DNS lookup database so it would not have to connect for those. What
> causes this? It also dials whenever I send mail to a local computer too
> using sendmail.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Kris Jordan
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FTP and IPchains\Masquerading
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 23:38:23 GMT
all I too am running RH6.0 and having the exact
same problem. I would want to runn active FTP
sessions but I don't know how that will work out.
the command line below did not work. Either I
misread/interpreted or did not put the command
into the system as intended. Could you offer a
real example ( no variables ) and how you are
dealing with road runner dhcp address changes as
related to ipchains.
Thanks
Brian
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Barnaby DiAnni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>
> > Hello I wonder if anyone can help me?
> > I have been trying and failing to access a
company ftp site that is
> > not running on port 21 (the reasons for this
are a paranoid IT
> > Director who decided it would be best to keep
our sensitive data as
> > well hidden as possible).
> > I am am running a small home network using a
RH6 machine as my web
> > gateway using ipchains\masquerading,
everything else works ok just
> > the ftp side is giving me hell. I get as far
as the LIST -L command in
> > my ftp client (Cuteftp) and it just hangs
until I stop the process.
> > Cute tells me it "couldnt build a data
connection".
> > Previously I had been running an NT4 machine
with Sygate as the
> > gateway and it worked fine after I added a
rule for the port to the
> > config file.
> > I have tried adding the ip_masq_ftp module
line also including a
> > ports=ip_masq_ftp XXX line to my rc.firewall
file but it makes no
> > difference, it refuses to play ball.
> > I'd hate to go back to using an NT Machine as
my gateway but it seems
> > I will have to.
> > Is it an impossibilty or am I missing
something obvious. Does NT4 win
> > hands down on this occasion?
>
> Ian ,
>
> We can do this with Linux we just need more
info. :-)
>
> Are you using passive or active ftp client?
> Are you able to connect and download from this
site from your IP Masq
> Linux box?
> Have you tried to ftp with all your ipchains
rules set to accept?
> Are you able to connect to other ftp sites?
>
> If you are using an active ftp connection then
maybe the below can help.
> You need to allow port 20 SYN packets through
your IP Chains packet
> filter.
>
> This line in my IP chains script works for me.
> $IPCHAINS -A input -i $ExtIF -p tcp -s 0/0 20 -d
$ExtHostIP 1023: -j
> ACCEPT
> echo -n " ftp-client"
>
> In english:
> ipchains -A (add a rule) input (to the input
chain) -i (interface)
> $ExtIF
> (variable for my eth0) -p tcp (protocol tcp) -s
0/0 (source IP =any)
> 20 (source port 20) -d (destination ip)
$ExtHostIP (variable for my
> external ip address)
> 1023: (syntax means destination port 1023 and
above) -j ACCEPT ( let em
> in ;)
>
> If you are able to get to other ftp sites from a
client behind your IP
> Masq box then we
> need to find out on what port this paranoid IT
director is building his
> ftp-data connections.
>
> Barnaby
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: DL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A simple one...
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 16:04:40 -0700
Frank Hahn wrote:
>
> Most likely nothing but it's hard to tell with what you wrote. I
> assume you are asking a question concerning Samba.
>
> If you are wondering if the smbd deamon should be running, the
> best I can answer is that it does not run continually on my system.
> Sometimes it is there when I check and other times it is not.
Thanks for your response.
The smbd-D daemon will not run at all on my system, even with the
orig smb.conf file in /etc (ie. nothing is configured yet)
================================
workgroup=MYGROUP
server string = Samba Server
printcap = /etc/printcap
load printers = yes
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 50
socket options = TCP_NODELAY
dns proxy = no
[homes]
path = /home/netlogon
browseable = no
writable = yes
============================================
A review of my /var/log/samba/log.smb file shows this problem:
[1999/07/04 14:19:17, 1] smbd/server.c:main(614)
smbd version 2.0.3 started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell 1992-1998
[1999/07/04 14:19:17, 1] smb/file.c:file_init(219)
file_init: Information only: requested 10000 open files, 1014 are
available.
[1999/07/04 14:19:17, 0] lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_in(671)
bind failed on port 139 socket addr=0.0.0.0 (address already in
use)
It seems to me that upgrading from RedHat 5.1 to RedHat 6.0 has
changed my configuration around so that smbd will not run anymore.
Any help would be appreciated.
Denning
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob)
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: OK - I GIVE UP! - can't give users ftp access!!!!????
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 00:17:36 GMT
crayfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mh, did you look at your /etc/shells ? There has to be an entry
>for the shell, the users wants to use. E.g. if you passwd file
>tells "user:...:/bin/bash" then there has to be an entry like
>"/bin/bash" in the etc/shells file.
yep - should'v said that - etc/shell is correct also...
________________________________________________
Definition of Windows 95:
A 32 bit upgrade to 16 bit extensions for an 8 bit operating system
designed to run on a 4 bit processor by a 2 bit company that
doesn't like 1 bit of competition.
>Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> thought I had this nailed when I finally got anon access...
>
>> but guess not - running mandrake 6 (rh6) beroftpd;
>> my ftp user's home is /home/ftp and is 0777;
>> my ftphosts has "allow 192.168.1.*"
>> my ftpusers has root, and various admin logins; BUT NO
>> users (that are supposed to use ftp)
>> I have an ftpgroups which has a test entry, and have not touched.
>> I have checked & re-checked ftpaccess, and can find NO security
>> entries for this file.
>> in fact, found NO man pages for /etc/ftp*.
>> (except for ftpaccess - which as I said doesn't seem to address
>> security)
>> SO - anon can login, no problem.
>> is there an ftppasswd file or something that i'm missing?
>> how exactly DOES ftp authenticate users?
>> does it use passwd?
>> my passwd file doesn't even have des encrypted passwords -
>> just "x"'s....
>> where ARE the passwords really stored??!!!
>> ok - enuf rambling - any help?
>> tia - Bob
>
>mh, did you look at your /etc/shells ? There has to be an entry
>for the shell, the users wants to use. E.g. if you passwd file
>tells "user:...:/bin/bash" then there has to be an entry like
>"/bin/bash" in the etc/shells file.
>
>good luck
>
>Crayfish
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Richard B. Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: eth0 default interface - eth1 can't be used
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 00:32:09 GMT
Hi All;
I'm trying to build a firewall with kernel 2.2.10. I've also used
2.2.9, with similar results.
Whilst I can get networking going, so to speak, the machine sends every
packet through eth0. So, whilst it knows that there's a directly
connected subnet on eth1, it will send it all via eth0.
If I rebind eth0 to be the other card, it works fine (so, it appears to
be a software, rather than hardware, issue).
What's really wierd is that regardless of which card is in use,
ifconfig will only increment tx and rx from ifconfig for eth1.
I've also tried enabling ip forwarding within the kernel (/prc support,
sysctl support, echo to the /proc point at bootup) and it makes no
difference.
Any idea what's going on? I've not use a 2.2.x kernel before, but have
had this working no issues on a 2.0.x kernel.
Cheers
Richard Parry
--
Richard Parry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tonic for the thinking man. ICQ UID 880301
+64 2 166 4655 http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~richard/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Kris Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DNS problem
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 17:27:03 -0700
Naa. My host.conf is set the way you have and I tried that search localhost.
But I think there needs something to be changed in some DNS config file. I
thought that I had it workign before, where if I have my machines listed in
the DNS cache (which I was able to do with linuxconf) it wouldn't dial. But
it still does. It also seems to keep the connection up even If I do nothing.
Turning off named allows it to disconnect.
Kris Jordan
> If I remember correctly this has something to do with the "etc/host.conf"
> the it should say;
>
> order hosts,bind
> multi on
>
> also check your "/etc/resolv.conf"
> search localhost should be first.
>
> I hope this helps!
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (L J Bayuk)
Subject: Re: Apache setup question
Date: 5 Jul 1999 01:12:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi. Had to take my company's linux box home over the weekend to
>configure Apache. I screwed something up and had to reinstall apache
>1.3.3-1 from the Red Hat 5.2 distribution. Luckily, there was nothing
>other than the defaults configured yet. But now when I run Netscape and
>test the installation by point it to <http://localhost> it just hangs.
>At the office I got a new browser screen congratulating me for a good
>install. Anybody know what I could;ve done wrong? Thanks.
Maybe host resolution is set to use DNS first, then hosts file, and
at home (of course) it can't get to your office DNS? Eventually it
should have failed over to /etc/hosts, however, and found localhost.
Anyway, check your /etc/host.conf or try by IP address http://127.0.0.1
------------------------------
From: "John Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Want network file server - not internet
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:23:26 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7lk9ak$vtf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I thought to replace current 1.8 gig win95 file server that runs
Netbui,
>TCP/ip, and MacLan with Linux using TCP/ip protocol
You certainly can. Linux also supports the Appletalk network protocol.
>On the original server I have a partition set up as Data and then a
>subdirectory of a to z with customer files in directorys by their
name
>
>I assumed Linux would be good as a file server but only seem to see
>info on WEB serving. If I am right can someone explain what I should
do
>to be able to see and copy to the Linux Server and into what
partition
>to copy the contents of my other file server.
Serving files via NetBEUI is the province of a package called SAMBA.
It should have come with your Linux box. Poke around under /usr/doc/
and you should find documentation for it. A search on Dejanews and
most and web search engine should turn up lots of pointers to
information about it.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin PGP key ID: 0x41EA94F5
PGP key fingerprint: A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5 E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76
======================================================================
-
In the Lion
the Mighty Lion
the Zebra sleeps tonight...
Dee de-ee-ee-ee-ee de de de we um umma way!
------------------------------
From: "John Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are NetGear cards supported under Linux?
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:04:07 -0700
Stephan wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> I have Debian 2.1 on which I'm going to be installing the 2.2.x
>kernel. I just got a NetGear EA201C 10BT ISA Ethernet card. I just
>checked the Ethernet howto, and I didn't see this manufacturer
listed. Is
>it supported or should I return it? (On the box it says it can be
used on
>SCO UNIX) If it is supported, what driver do I need and where do I
get it?
If you've opened the box, take a look at the numbers on the biggest
chip. They may appear in the Ethernet HOWTO or the Redhat Hardware
Compatibility List.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin PGP key ID: 0x41EA94F5
PGP key fingerprint: A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5 E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76
======================================================================
-
In the Lion
the Mighty Lion
the Zebra sleeps tonight...
Dee de-ee-ee-ee-ee de de de we um umma way!
------------------------------
From: "John Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: please advise how linux gateway on nt network
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:19:25 -0700
Dawn Remington wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>i have a linux box RH 6.0 that i want to attach to an existing nt
network
>and use as a gateway for internet access. i am sure there must be a
writeup
>describibg how to do this. can someone advise me where?
>
>Dave Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a Firewall HOWTO and an IP Masquerade HOWTO. Sorry, I don't
have URLs handy, but a search at http://www.google.com/ should find
them fairly quickly.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin PGP key ID: 0x41EA94F5
PGP key fingerprint: A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5 E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76
======================================================================
-
In the Lion
the Mighty Lion
the Zebra sleeps tonight...
Dee de-ee-ee-ee-ee de de de we um umma way!
------------------------------
From: "John Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.2.10 + VPN
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:15:05 -0700
Dirk Leas wrote ...
>I've read through the "Linux VPN Masquerade" document and am having
trouble
>identifying the steps necessary to build a VPN between two networks
given
>to linux 2.2.10-based firewalls (happens to be RH 6.0+kernel
upgrade). Most
>of the content caters to 2.0 kernels.
I've just barely finished the 2.2.x patches, so now I can start
working on bringing the documentation up to date.
>Here's the idea...
>
>eastCoast:
> [inside] <-> eth0 (172.31.1.0/255.255.255.0)
>[outside] <-> eth1 (24.1.244.100/255.255.242.0)
>
>westCoast:
> [inside] <-> eth0 (172.31.2.0/255.255.255.0)
>[outside] <-> eth1 (24.1.211.100/255.255.248.0)
>
>I need to connect using a VPN between eastCoast's 24.1.244.100 and
>westCoast's 24.1.211.100 across the internet. They can already ping
each
>other, and both internal networks can successfully ipmasq out to the
>internet.
>
>I'm trying to securely route samba, and some of the other standard
protocols
>(http, ftp, etc.). Any references or examples would be GREATLY
appreciated!
>I'd be happy to start a "Linux Kernel 2.2.x VPN for dummies" if I can
bring
>this together (there definitely seems to be a quite a bit of traffic
asking
>similar questions).
VPN Masq is only useful if you've *already* got the VPN set up. You
appear to want to set up a new VPN rather than access an existing one
from behind your firewall. That's why you can't figure out how to do
it from reading the VPN Masq docs.
If what you want is to set up a tunnel between 172.31.1.0 and
172.31.2.0 you should look at FreeS/WAN (if the firewalls are Linux
boxes). The current snapshots work with the 2.2.x kernel. There's a
link to the FreeS/WAN pages on the VPN Masq page. The documentation
for FreeS/WAN should be fairly easy to digest, and what you seem to
want to achieve is one of the simple sample cases.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin PGP key ID: 0x41EA94F5
PGP key fingerprint: A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5 E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76
======================================================================
-
In the Lion
the Mighty Lion
the Zebra sleeps tonight...
Dee de-ee-ee-ee-ee de de de we um umma way!
------------------------------
From: Chuck Snively <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Remote Access Server, etc........
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 21:55:51 -0500
==============30B552BBEB4C7C2A58B3A4FD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi All,
I am running a small network of computers at home and I am very
interested in becoming a small ISP but I don't want to purchase IP #'s
and don't want to wait the 6-10 months to get them (the ISP that I'm
using for my backbone says they have to do a case study taking
approximately ten months).
Then I thought..........why can't I have users log into my private
network, assign them an IP # locally and use IP Masquerading to allow
them access. Hmmmmm........I don't see a problem with this but I have a
few questions.
1. I want to have about 16-32 modems to start with attached to a
mult-port serial card. Do I have to set up a Remote Access Server or is
there some other way to accept a dial-in connection?
If I do have to set up a RAS, can you direct me to documentation?
2. Do I need to have a full DNS server running or can I get away with a
caching DNS instead?
3. I am using IP Forwarding, do I have to have a router? If so, is there
an easy way to set one up using Linux?
4. On my local network of three computers (including my Linux box as a
gateway for the other two machines-486DX/33's) the performance (surfing
and downloading) is very good. Can I expect to have the same performance
with all 16-32 connections going at the same time? I will be using a
dedicated 128K-256K ISDN backbone from my ISP.
I do know of a gentleman in the USA that is doing the same thing but has
public IP #'s for his customers.
Please keep in mind that, although this set up is low-end, I plan on
upgrading very soon after the ISP gets going. Understand that I am not
in a position to dole out a lot of cash at this time.
I am very grateful for any information anyone may have.
Chuck
P.S. I would appreciate direct e-mail responses to:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==============30B552BBEB4C7C2A58B3A4FD
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
Hi All,
<P>I am running a small network of computers at home and I am very interested
in becoming a small ISP but I don't want to purchase IP #'s and don't want
to wait the 6-10 months to get them (the ISP that I'm using for my backbone
says they have to do a case study taking approximately ten months).
<P>Then I thought..........why can't I have users log into my private network,
assign them an IP # locally and use IP Masquerading to allow them access.
Hmmmmm........I don't see a problem with this but I have a few questions.
<P>1. I want to have about 16-32 modems to start with attached to a mult-port
serial card. Do I have to set up a <B>R</B>emote <B>A</B>ccess <B>S</B>erver
or is there some other way to accept a dial-in connection?
<BR>If I do have to set up a <B>RAS</B>, can you direct me to documentation?
<P>2. Do I need to have a full DNS server running or can I get away with
a caching DNS instead?
<P>3. I am using IP Forwarding, do I have to have a router? If so, is there
an easy way to set one up using Linux?
<P>4. On my local network of three computers (including my Linux box as
a gateway for the other two machines-486DX/33's) the performance (surfing
and downloading) is very good. Can I expect to have the same performance
with all 16-32 connections going at the same time? I will be using a dedicated
128K-256K ISDN backbone from my ISP.
<BR>I do know of a gentleman in the USA that is doing the same thing but
has public IP #'s for his customers.
<P>Please keep in mind that, although this set up is low-end, I plan on
upgrading very soon after the ISP gets going. Understand that I am not
in a position to dole out a lot of cash at this time.
<P>I am very grateful for any information anyone may have.
<P>Chuck
<P>P.S. I would appreciate direct e-mail responses to:
<P><A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></HTML>
==============30B552BBEB4C7C2A58B3A4FD==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Efflandt)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux.isp,alt.os.linux.dial-up
Subject: Re: pppd scripting and diald
Date: 5 Jul 1999 02:41:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 21:56:10 +0000, Ben Paley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello,
> Right, I can dial up my ISP, connect, view web pages, send mail (at
>least I can if you're reading this), but I can't seem to suss out the
>scripts to stop me having to type in the whole command line each time.
>Also, everything about diald that I've read is just so complicated...
>I'm not stupid, I'm just a Newbie, and I'm getting frustrated!
> Help me please!
> Thanks,
>
>--
> Cheerio,
> Ben
What whole command line? All I type is "diald" when I want it running. I
used the sample diald.conf from /usr/lib/diald/contrib/plain and think I
am using the standard connect and diald.defs, but /etc/diald.conf is set
to hold the connection up for 15 minutes (900 sec) for any connection
since I am not charged by the minute.
I even whipped up a bash script so if I want to sent it a command instead
of 'echo "quit" >> /etc/diald/diald.ctl' all I have to type is
'ddctl quit'.
--
David Efflandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xnet.com/~efflandt/
http://www.de-srv.com/ http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Microsoft Cheat On The New Mindcraft Benchmark?
Date: 5 Jul 1999 02:42:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:20:47 -0500, Alan Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Clients depend on your judgment about what they need, because in many
>instances they're either uninformed or misinformed. Only an idiot or a
>shyster would sell a client something just because they ask for it. You
>can continue to sell your clients whatever they ask for if you want, but
>I'm going to sell mine what they really need because that's what they
>trust me to do.
What they need whether they want it or not!
Let's say you have a client who wants FooServer on Windows NT 2112.
You might discuss it with them and point out that you feel that there
are better solutions. But will you refuse to install it if that is
what they really want?
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Efflandt)
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 5 Jul 1999 02:53:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04 Jul 1999 22:32:37 GMT, DarkW42549 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am a casual Linux user and I have hit a roadblock, so now I turn to those of
>you who know way more than I do.
>
>I am running Red Hat Linux Version 4.2 on a dual-boot with Dos 6.2/ Win 3.1. I
>am in the process of setting up a 10/100 LAN between my P200 w/ Win95b, my
>"soon to be built when I cough up the dough" PII 333 w/Win 95b and my Linux
>system (a lowly Cyrix 166). I would like to use the large HDD on the Linux
>machine as a storage space and backup area for the two "crash"dows 95 machines.
> What steps am I going to need to take to get the Linux machine ready? What if
>anything needs to be done with the Win 95b (besides reformatting the HDD and
>putting Linux on) machines?
>It is possible in the future that the Linux machine will also become my
>Internet portal. What needs to be done in that case?
>
>Thanks in advance
>Ja-confirmedwindowshater-son
In a word "samba". It might be wise to update your old RedHat which would
come with a newer version. See the .smb newsgroup for more info (I think
comp.protocols.smb). Of course you can always use ftp, but with samba you
can mount a Linux directory as a drive on Win or a Win drive on Linux to
make file transfer as simple as another drive or dir.
--
David Efflandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xnet.com/~efflandt/
http://www.de-srv.com/ http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
