Linux-Networking Digest #250, Volume #12 Mon, 16 Aug 99 21:13:42 EDT
Contents:
Re: IMAP clients for linux (Victor Wagner)
Re: Firewall on same subnet? (Kyle Page)
Re: Installing PCMCIA with Realport 10/100 (Will bober)
Re: installing problem please help (Ken Booth)
Re: Can't get 2 NIC's to work (Andy Johnstone)
Re: Can't get 2 NIC's to work (Andy Johnstone)
Re: Installing PCMCIA with Realport 10/100 (Will bober)
Re: Samba Problems (Daniel Lawson)
Re: TIME_WAIT with TCP socket (Dan Lanciani)
installing problem please help (Kilocomp)
Re: Direct ethernet connection under Linux (Ken Booth)
Re: Kernel compiling (Andy Johnstone)
Re: Linux crashes all the time, need help!!! (Chris Mahmood)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.windows.x.kde
Subject: Re: IMAP clients for linux
Date: 17 Aug 1999 00:15:50 +0400
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Why do you think than an IMAP client also has to have an interface for browsing
: mail?
: The fetchmail program may be an alternative for you. It will pull mail from an
: IMAP account and deliver it to a local mailbox. You can then use any mail
: program to browse the mail locally, including one that doesn't have IMAP
: support. For example, exmh. It's one ugly piece of TCL programming, but it's
: robust.
This is true for POP3, but not for IMAP. Best thing about IMAP is that
you can login to IMAP server from home, browse your mail, answering most
urgent messages, delete obvois spam, and rest of your mail still seat there
and wait for you coming to office after weekend. Moreover, if you use
imap folders, imap server+cliet works like world-wide accessable
personal information manager for you.
fetchmail defeats this advantage - it downloads mail to your current
machine and you either delete all the mail or keep it all there,
depending on your fetchmailrc. You cannot delete mail from remote folder
selectively or store messages in another remote folder.
Actually, I use pine to manage my mail in remote imap folders, sitting on
machine which has permanent internet connection, and I can get real SMTP
feed just with one line in my .procmailrc on remote machine.
But I really don't understand why people complains about non-GUI-ness of
pine. Mail is text-based thing, so text-based program fit naturally to
deal with it. And if there is attached jpeg or pdf, pine will show it
for me. And if there is URL in it, it would launch browser (I use lynx,
but nothing prevent you from launching netscape). But if I need to log
in over slow link where it is impossible to run X apps, I can use same
mail program as usial.
: The nice thing about fetchmail is that it works in the background. It's as
: though your machine were getting a live e-mail feed.
--
========================================================
Victor Wagner @ home = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't answer questions by private E-Mail from this address.
------------------------------
From: Kyle Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Firewall on same subnet?
Date: 16 Aug 1999 16:46:42 PDT
==============87723509553D0A9E675B6B61
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Actually, masquerading is not an option for me since I need my internal
boxes visible from the outside (and port forwarding won't do). I've
discovered a solution without breaking up my current subnet and losing some
IPs. The solution is to use Proxy ARP and 'fool' the router into sending
packets to the network through the public side of the firewall and vice
versa to 'fool' the local LAN to send packets for the router to the private
side. Then, routing on the firewall goes something like this:
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
x.x.98.161 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
x.x.98.160 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth1
0.0.0.0 x.x.98.161 0.0.0.0 UG 1 0 0 eth0
This is kinda a hack but it's the perfect solution for me currently. It
works great and I don't lose those precious IPs!
Thanks for all the help,
Kyle
Cornel Popescu wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As far as I know, that is not possible. The problem arises with
> routing.
> > You cannot have the same subnet/subnet mask on 2 separate cards on a
> > machine. The only real way to do this with the same "subnet" is to
> fix the
> > subnet mask such that each side of your firewall "looks" like a
> different
> > network. Do the IPs on the LAN need to remain exactly what they are,
> or
> > can you change them, such that if you changed the subnet mask, you
> could
> > have 2 separate lans. BTW, I am not sure what the subnet mask itself
> would
> > have to be.
> > Kyle Page wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure if this is even possible (thus the post) but...
> > > I'm trying to setup a Linux Firewall (using Red Hat v5.2) between my
> DSL
> > > router and my local LAN. It goes something like this:
> > >
> > > ------ ----------- ---------- -----
> > > | WAN | -- | My router | ------- | Firewall | ------------ | LAN |
> > > ------ ----------- ---------- -----
> > > x.x.86.161 x.x.86.162 x.x.86.163
> > >
> > > Subnet: 255.255.255.240
> > > Network: x.x.86.160
> > >
> > > As you can see from the above, I'm trying to place the Firewall on
> the
> > > same subnet as the network for which I'd like to protect. That is,
> > > between my router and LAN. It seems like this would be possible
> > > somehow??? The problem I'm having now is that when I activate both
> > > cards on the firewall, only the last card to be activated is
> reachable..
> > > that is ping'able from the firewall machine. For example, if eth0
> and
> > > eth1 are configured as x.x.86.162 and x.x.86.163 respectively, then
> I
> > > can only ping x.x.86.163 (assuming it is activated last). If I
> activate
> > > eth0 last, then only eth0 is reachable. However, if I configure
> them so
> > > they are on separate networks, let's say eth0 = x.x.85.122, and eth1
> =
> > > x.x.86.163 and activate them both, they are both reachable. It is
> only
> > > when both NICs are configured to be on the same network that I have
> this
> > > problem. Therefore, I have ruled out any hardware problems. Would
> this
> > > "routing" issue be handled by "ipfwadm"? I've looked many places
> for a
> > > solution and I'm starting to lose gumption (sited "Zen and the Art
> of
> > > Motorcycle Maintenance") :) My DSL router does have Firewall
> software
> > > but I'd rather not spend the extra cash.. and I'd rather do it
> myself.
>
> Well, a couple of questions arise here: why would you like to use your
> routable addresses for internal network and not use non-routable IP's
> for internal network and masquerading on the firewall ? This would make
> a nice firewall, with the drawback that the computers from the internal
> network won't be accesible from outside (except if you forward ports on
> the linux box, see masquerading docs).
> Then if you really want to use your solution you would have to split
> your IP adresses in 2 in order to create 2 separate networks and change
> the routes on the router as well. This would limit the number of
> computers you can use for internal network to 8 (as a matter of fact 6,
> since you will use 2 addresses for network addy and broadcast). The
> routes would be like follows:
> router:
> route add -net x.x.86.160 netmask 255.255.255.252
> linux eth0 (to router)
> route add -net x.x.86.160 netmask 255.255.255.252 dev eth0
> linux eth1 (to internal net)
> route add -net x.x.86.164 netmask 255.255.255.248 dev eth1
> Of course default route on linux = 161, and computers in internal
> network will have IP's from 165 (linux eth1) to 171, with mask 248,
> default gw 165, and you will loose many of your 16 addresses...
> If I were you, I would rather go for masquerading ... You can do
> interesting things (see DMZ) like that.
> Maybe there are other ideas ?
>
> Cornel
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
==============87723509553D0A9E675B6B61
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<tt>Actually, masquerading is not an option for me since I need my internal
boxes visible from the outside (and port forwarding won't do). I've
discovered a solution without breaking up my current subnet and losing
some IPs. The solution is to use Proxy ARP and 'fool' the router
into sending packets to the network through the public side of the firewall
and vice versa to 'fool' the local LAN to send packets for the router to
the private side. Then, routing on the firewall goes something like
this:</tt>
<br><tt>Destination Gateway
Genmask Flags Metric Ref
Use Iface</tt>
<br><tt>x.x.98.161 0.0.0.0
255.255.255.255 UH 0
0
0 eth0</tt>
<br><tt>x.x.98.160 0.0.0.0
255.255.255.240 U 0
0 0 eth1</tt>
<br><tt>0.0.0.0 x.x.98.161
0.0.0.0 UG
1 0 0 eth0</tt><tt></tt>
<p><tt>This is kinda a hack but it's the perfect solution for me currently.
It works great and I don't lose those precious IPs!</tt>
<p>Thanks for all the help,
<br>Kyle
<br>
<p>Cornel Popescu wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<br> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<br>> As far as I know, that is not possible. The problem arises
with
<br>routing.
<br>> You cannot have the same subnet/subnet mask on 2 separate cards on
a
<br>> machine. The only real way to do this with the same "subnet"
is to
<br>fix the
<br>> subnet mask such that each side of your firewall "looks" like a
<br>different
<br>> network. Do the IPs on the LAN need to remain exactly what
they are,
<br>or
<br>> can you change them, such that if you changed the subnet mask, you
<br>could
<br>> have 2 separate lans. BTW, I am not sure what the subnet mask
itself
<br>would
<br>> have to be.
<br>> Kyle Page wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > I'm not sure if this is even possible (thus the post) but...
<br>> > I'm trying to setup a Linux Firewall (using Red Hat v5.2) between
my
<br>DSL
<br>> > router and my local LAN. It goes something like this:
<br>> >
<br>> > ------
-----------
==========
=====
<br>> > | WAN | -- | My router | ------- | Firewall | ------------
| LAN |
<br>> > ------
-----------
==========
=====
<br>>
>
x.x.86.161 x.x.86.162 x.x.86.163
<br>> >
<br>> > Subnet: 255.255.255.240
<br>> > Network: x.x.86.160
<br>> >
<br>> > As you can see from the above, I'm trying to place the Firewall
on
<br>the
<br>> > same subnet as the network for which I'd like to protect.
That is,
<br>> > between my router and LAN. It seems like this would be possible
<br>> > somehow??? The problem I'm having now is that when I activate
both
<br>> > cards on the firewall, only the last card to be activated is
<br>reachable..
<br>> > that is ping'able from the firewall machine. For example,
if eth0
<br>and
<br>> > eth1 are configured as x.x.86.162 and x.x.86.163 respectively,
then
<br>I
<br>> > can only ping x.x.86.163 (assuming it is activated last).
If I
<br>activate
<br>> > eth0 last, then only eth0 is reachable. However, if I configure
<br>them so
<br>> > they are on separate networks, let's say eth0 = x.x.85.122, and
eth1
<br>=
<br>> > x.x.86.163 and activate them both, they are both reachable.
It is
<br>only
<br>> > when both NICs are configured to be on the same network that I
have
<br>this
<br>> > problem. Therefore, I have ruled out any hardware problems.
Would
<br>this
<br>> > "routing" issue be handled by "ipfwadm"? I've looked many
places
<br>for a
<br>> > solution and I'm starting to lose gumption (sited "Zen and the
Art
<br>of
<br>> > Motorcycle Maintenance") :) My DSL router does have Firewall
<br>software
<br>> > but I'd rather not spend the extra cash.. and I'd rather do it
<br>myself.
<p>Well, a couple of questions arise here: why would you like to use your
<br>routable addresses for internal network and not use non-routable IP's
<br>for internal network and masquerading on the firewall ? This would
make
<br>a nice firewall, with the drawback that the computers from the internal
<br>network won't be accesible from outside (except if you forward ports
on
<br>the linux box, see masquerading docs).
<br>Then if you really want to use your solution you would have to split
<br>your IP adresses in 2 in order to create 2 separate networks and change
<br>the routes on the router as well. This would limit the number of
<br>computers you can use for internal network to 8 (as a matter of fact
6,
<br>since you will use 2 addresses for network addy and broadcast). The
<br>routes would be like follows:
<br>router:
<br>route add -net x.x.86.160 netmask 255.255.255.252
<br>linux eth0 (to router)
<br>route add -net x.x.86.160 netmask 255.255.255.252 dev eth0
<br>linux eth1 (to internal net)
<br>route add -net x.x.86.164 netmask 255.255.255.248 dev eth1
<br>Of course default route on linux = 161, and computers in internal
<br>network will have IP's from 165 (linux eth1) to 171, with mask 248,
<br>default gw 165, and you will loose many of your 16 addresses...
<br>If I were you, I would rather go for masquerading ... You can do
<br>interesting things (see DMZ) like that.
<br>Maybe there are other ideas ?
<p>Cornel
<p>Sent via Deja.com <a href="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</a>
<br>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.</blockquote>
</html>
==============87723509553D0A9E675B6B61==
------------------------------
From: Will bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Installing PCMCIA with Realport 10/100
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:33:54 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============55D23352CBF86167CB4C7707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Check the Xircom site. I think I saw a reference to somebody who has
written 3rd party drivers.
- Will Bober
�
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> � I am installing Redhat 6 on my Tecra 780 Laptop. I have a Xircom
> Realport 10/100 Ethernet card that I would like to use. Does anyone
> know if this card is supported in RedHat 6? In addition to this I am
> not sure how to install the PCMCIA Services. Since I do not need the
> Network connection for install I do not select that PCMCIA option
> during install. I do select the PCMCIA package when selecting packages
> to install. Can anyone recommend a fairly basic tutorial/instruction on
> installin PCMCIA and a subsequent Ethernet PCMCIA Card? Thanks for any
> suggestions.
>
> --
>
> David
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
==============55D23352CBF86167CB4C7707
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=x-user-defined; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Will Bober
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Will Bober
n: Bober;Will
org: Hamilton Myriadgate
adr;dom: 200-233 4 Ave. South;;;Saskatoon;SK;S7K 1N1;
email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
title: Sales Consultant
tel;work: 306-956-3352
tel;fax: 306-956-3347
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
==============55D23352CBF86167CB4C7707==
------------------------------
From: Ken Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: installing problem please help
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:08:27 -0500
Kilocomp wrote:
> I just built a new computer and am trying to install linux. I made the boot
> disk on another machine (I downloaded red hat 6.0 and put it on a cd). When i
> put the boot disk in it loads and I press enter it says loading initrd.img then
> it says boot failed. What do I need to do?
Was the 'other machine' a Win9x machine? If so, I recommend running it in DOS only
mode (F8 while Windows 9x is starting, choose 'command prompt only') then do your
rawrite. DON'T LET Win9x SCAN YOUR FLOPPY - it will be ruined!
--
Regards, Ken
I AM.
------------------------------
From: Andy Johnstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can't get 2 NIC's to work
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:23:35 -0400
Hey, i'm going to be doing the same thing soon, so i hope i don't run
into this problem. Anyway, off the top of my head i'd say to check for
irq confilcts. less /proc/interrupts should tell you. If they are pci
that shouldn't be the problem. If thats the case, i'm not sure what to
tell you.
andy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have 2 identical 3com 905b NIC's. When I use just
>
> one to connect my machine to the outside world
>
> everthing is fine. As soon as I try to put both cards
>
> in nothing works. On bootup I get a delaying
>
> initialization message for both eth0 & eth1. Also adm
>
> takes forever to start when this happens.
>
> thx,
>
> Ryan
>
> ------------------ Posted via CNET Linux Help ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Andy Johnstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can't get 2 NIC's to work
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:24:29 -0400
Hey, i'm going to be doing the same thing soon, so i hope i don't run
into this problem. Anyway, off the top of my head i'd say to check for
irq confilcts. less /proc/interrupts should tell you. If they are pci
that shouldn't be the problem. If thats the case, i'm not sure what to
tell you.
andy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have 2 identical 3com 905b NIC's. When I use just
>
> one to connect my machine to the outside world
>
> everthing is fine. As soon as I try to put both cards
>
> in nothing works. On bootup I get a delaying
>
> initialization message for both eth0 & eth1. Also adm
>
> takes forever to start when this happens.
>
> thx,
>
> Ryan
>
> ------------------ Posted via CNET Linux Help ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Will bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Installing PCMCIA with Realport 10/100
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:34:29 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============1FDD20AE7696C7A3DC503DCC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Check the Xircom site. I think I saw a reference to somebody who has
written 3rd party drivers.
- Will Bober
�
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> � I am installing Redhat 6 on my Tecra 780 Laptop. I have a Xircom
> Realport 10/100 Ethernet card that I would like to use. Does anyone
> know if this card is supported in RedHat 6? In addition to this I am
> not sure how to install the PCMCIA Services. Since I do not need the
> Network connection for install I do not select that PCMCIA option
> during install. I do select the PCMCIA package when selecting packages
> to install. Can anyone recommend a fairly basic tutorial/instruction on
> installin PCMCIA and a subsequent Ethernet PCMCIA Card? Thanks for any
> suggestions.
>
> --
>
> David
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
==============1FDD20AE7696C7A3DC503DCC
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=x-user-defined; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Will Bober
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Will Bober
n: Bober;Will
org: Hamilton Myriadgate
adr;dom: 200-233 4 Ave. South;;;Saskatoon;SK;S7K 1N1;
email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
title: Sales Consultant
tel;work: 306-956-3352
tel;fax: 306-956-3347
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
==============1FDD20AE7696C7A3DC503DCC==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Lawson)
Subject: Re: Samba Problems
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:24:13 GMT
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:43:03 +0200, "Frederik Meerwaldt"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi all,
> after I installed Kernel 2.2.11 on my SuSE 6.0 Linux box (was 2.0.39)
> everything but SMBMOUNT works fine.
> If I try to smbmount a network device with the parameters which worked
>in the last kernel version, I get a error message Invalid Argument. After
>looking to Virtual Console 10 (CTRL+ALT+F10) (Console Log, I think) with
>every try a line is added:
>Aug 15 02:46:23 linuxbox kernel: SMBFS: need mount version 6.
>After that I downloaded SAMBA 2.0.5 and installed it (./configure.sh, make
>install)
Yes, you still need a newer version of mount.
I came across the same problem running samba-2.0.3 on RH5.2 / 2.2.4.
Get a source rpm or similar of mount, and compile it (Not sure if SuSE
6.0 and SuSE 6.1 are totally libc compliant, I know most rh6.0 rpms
dont like my rh5.2 box).
Oh, and the command line has changed for samba has changed..
to mount a share you need..
smbmount -u <username> -n <netbios name> -c 'mount <mount-point>'
it will then prompt for your password. Alternatively, if no password
is set, you can include the -N option to skip the password.
------------------------------
From: ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: TIME_WAIT with TCP socket
Date: 16 Aug 99 23:11:12 GMT
In article <7p9mj5$hi1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| > Actually most stacks use the BSD time-wait hack (sanctioned by
| RFC1122).
| > When a new connection attempt with a sequence number after the last
| > sequence number used by the old connection occurs the time-wait is
| dropped
| > early and the connection request is processed.
|
| I've always been under the impression that the chances of successfully
| taking that path were rather slim.
Your impression is certainly correct for many products based on (at least)
net/1 and earlier stacks (probably net/2 as well; I forget). I've seen at
least three generations of code to implement the hack (not counting my own
variation which worked :) and they were all flawed. In one the code could
never be reached at all, in another it could be reached but only under very
unusual circumstances (possibly the one you were thinking of) and in a third
the code was reached in the subject case but failed to fall through to the
section that should respond. This last case at least dropped the existing
TIME_WAIT connection such that the next retransmission from the connect
attempt did work.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kilocomp)
Subject: installing problem please help
Date: 16 Aug 1999 21:07:09 GMT
I just built a new computer and am trying to install linux. I made the boot
disk on another machine (I downloaded red hat 6.0 and put it on a cd). When i
put the boot disk in it loads and I press enter it says loading initrd.img then
it says boot failed. What do I need to do?
Thanks,
Nick
------------------------------
From: Ken Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Direct ethernet connection under Linux
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:36:52 -0500
LIAN SHEN wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I get a problem with ethernet connection under linux:
>
> I want to connect 2 laptops, both equipped with PCMCIA 10/100BaseT
> ethernet card. So I took a cross-over cable (not the normal twisted-pair
> one)
>
> My setup is the following:
>
> IP=130.60.93.222 resp. 130.60.93.223
> Mask=255.255.255.0, Broadcast=130.60.93.255 (for both hosts)
>
> Under Windows98, it's no problem, both cards detect a 100Mbit/s mode.
> (The actual transfer rate is lower.)
>
> When I booted ONE host to Linux, ethernet cards can still detect
> 100Mbit/s mode, but there is no connection available. Then I pulled out
> this crossed-over cable from the linux host, connected this linux host
> with normal twisted-pair cable to our switch, (without reboot and
> changing any network information), it can problemlessly connect to
> internet
> (ping, ftp, telnet...).
>
> When both hosts booted to Linux, there was still no improvement, ping
> showed
> no response from the other host.
>
> /var/log/messages tells me
> kernel: eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #0 link partner
> capability of 41e1.
>
> The ifconfig command tells me
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:60:08:B5:73:E2
> inet addr:130.60.93.222 Bcast:130.60.93.255
> Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:99 errors:2 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:2
> TX packets:44 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:44
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> Interrupt:10 Base address:0x100
>
> Does anyone have an idea what I configured wrong under Linux?
>
> BTW, Linux version I use is Mandrake6.0 and Redhat6.0.
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Lian Shen
Hi,
Are your hosts.deny and hosts.allow files set up correctly?
--
Regards, Ken
I AM.
------------------------------
From: Andy Johnstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Kernel compiling
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:45:26 -0400
Well don't know about the first problem, never booted linux just from a floppy,
but you're 2nd problem imight be able to help with.
first, do this
$ echo $PATH
You're looking for /usr/bin in the path. If its not there problem solved!
Type this command
$ export PATH=/usr/bin:$PATH (if bash is your shell)
$ setenv PATH /usr/bin:$PATH (if csh is your shell)
Try make again. If it works, you may want to edit /etc/profile and add
/usr/bin to your search path. If not, you'll have to install gcc. I'm not
sure what package that is in.
andy
Frederik Likaj wrote:
> I have just figured out ( i believed) how to get my RealTek8019 working.I
>
> went throw /usr/src/linux 1-make dep,make clean,make bzImage,make modules
>
> and make modules_install.Before that i had my ppp running and i could
>
> connect to internet on my RedHat 6.0.After i run make bzImage I just copy
>
> it to my floppy disc wich i use to boot into linux.It seems that eth0 work
>
> and i can ping around but i have lost my ppp conection.When i try to
>
> connect the modem don't react and it hangs on the yellow light.I believe
>
> that i have not done 100% right with the kernel compiling.What should i do?
>
> I use a floppy disc to boot linux.
>
> 2-Another problem is that i have another P.C. running linux RedHat 6.0 with
>
> the same netcard RealTek8019 but when i tried to compile the kernel i got
>
> the message
>
> make[1]:gcc:command not found
>
> make[1]:***[tkparse]Error 127
>
> make!***[xconfig]Error 2
>
> is any rpm i am missing there?
>
> Any help is welkomed.
>
> ------------------ Posted via CNET Linux Help ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Linux crashes all the time, need help!!!
Date: 16 Aug 1999 15:34:49 -0700
"George P. Staplin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> That's very strange and also FUD. Networking and browsing is much faster in
> NT for me. That's crazy to say that Navigator is 30-40% faster with Linux.
> I seriously doubt that Vinod Valloppillil is a Microsoft employee.
Do you? He was one of the authors of the "Halloween" docs. which MS
admitted were genuine.
-ckm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
