On 2:27 pm 09/05/06 Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:17:46 +1200 > Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > well Nick I referenced the heading and was n direct reply to > > Chris's comment why not use the manual. > > In other words if I knew what was expected e.g. ping in Linux not > > windows then I would have known to look there to find the command. > >
I know the subject line was intact, but Alan it would be better if you left a little context in so we know exactly what you were replying to. Don't forget some people may read these messages in isolation over a period of days. > > I have tried very hard to meet everything that is asked but I am > > beginning to think maybe > > I should consider tossing the lot in the bucket. > > > > right here are the results of pinging 127.0.0.1 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping 127.0.0.1 > > PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes > > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms > > > > --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics --- > > 6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss > > round-trip min/avg/max = 0.0/0.0/0.0 ms > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Alan > > > Well, that's ok then. The only thing left is to disable your firewall > and then attempt to connect. > > Steve > ( as an aside, we're trying to get linux working, so there'll be no > need to try *anything* in windows, even if there's an equivalent > command ). >From a google, it doesn't appear that the line "Sep 4 15:14:45 localhost pppd[15159]: sent [LCP TermReq id=0x4 "No network protocols running"]" means that there are no protocols installed on the machine. It means that pppd was unable to bring up a network protocol, not that the machine has some deficiency in its pppd stack or kernel.
