Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
J S wrote: With DHCP, you can actually get the IP address by looking in: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\DHCP] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\DHCP\DhcpInfo00] On my win95 host only the DhcpInfo and OptionInfo keys exist. But it seems that the IPAddress is stored in DhcpInfo. So i only have to find a mapping Interface-DhcpEntry and the switch that toggles the DHCP use in windows. bye ago -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, J S wrote: Here's the output I got from ls_netdev, although what's confusing is I'm using a token ring network connection, not ethernet as the output seems to suggest: The code for win95 can only distinguish between ppp and other network interfaces. $ ls_netdev-w95 ls_netdev $Id: ls_netdev.c,v 1.6 2002/11/10 16:14:32 ago Exp $ OS Version: Windows 9x 4.0 Build 67306684 B Querying devices using ioctl lo: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=127.0.0.1 eth0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 That's the problem. Does the adapter get its IP via dhcp? Can you please send me a registry dump of HKLM\\Enum\\Netwok\\MSTCP and HKLM\\System\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\Class\\NetTrans\0002 HKLM\\System\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\Class\\NetTrans\0008 ppp0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 lo: metric=1 mtu=3924 eth0: metric=1 mtu=1500 ppp0: metric=1 mtu=1500 Querying devices using internal function ifname: driver: NetTrans\0002 IPAddress: 0.0.0.0, IPMask: 0.0.0.0 AdapterName: ifname: 0002 driver: NetTrans\0008 IPAddress: 0.0.0.0, IPMask: 0.0.0.0 AdapterName: MS$PPP lo: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=127.0.0.1 eth0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 ppp0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 bye ago Thanks Alex. Heres HKLM\\Enum\\Netwok\\MSTCP and HKLM\\System\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\Class\\NetTrans\0002. I removed the PPP adapter so 0008 isn't there anymore. [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Network\MSTCP\] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Network\MSTCP\\] Class=NetTrans Driver=NetTrans\\0002 MasterCopy=Enum\\Network\\MSTCP\\ DeviceDesc=TCP/IP CompatibleIDs=MSTCP Mfg=Microsoft ConfigFlags=hex:10,00,00,00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Network\MSTCP\\\Bindings] VSERVER\\0001= VREDIR\\= [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans] @=Network Protocol Installer=netdi.dll Icon=-6 NoUseClass=1 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002] DriverDesc=TCP/IP IPAddress=10.252.20.185 IPMask=255.255.0.0 DeviceVxDs=vtdi.386,vip.386,vtcp.386,vdhcp.386,vnbt.386 InstallVnbt=0 InfPath=NETTRANS.INF DriverDate= 8-24-1996 DevLoader=*ndis NameServer1=10.252.6.21 NodeType=8 DefaultGateway=10.252.0.1 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\Ndi] DeviceID=MSTCP MaxInstance=8 NdiInstaller=mstcp.dll,TcpNdiProc HelpText=TCP/IP is the protocol you use to connect to the Internet and wide-area networks. InstallInf= InfSection=MSTCP.ndi [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\Ndi\Interfaces] DefUpper=netbios,tdi,winsock DefLower=ndis2,ndis3,odi UpperRange=netbios,tdi,winsock LowerRange=ndis2,ndis3,odi Upper=netbios,tdi,winsock Lower=ndis2,ndis3,odi [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\Ndi\Install] @=MSTCP.Install [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\Ndi\Remove] @=MSTCP.Remove [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\Ndi\Params] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\Ndi\Params\None] ParamDesc=None default= type=keyonly @= [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\Ndi\RenameBase] file1=C:\\WINDOWS\\winsock file2=C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\winsock file3=C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\win32s\\winsock [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\Ndi\Default] @=True [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002\NDIS] LogDriverName=MSTCP MajorNdisVersion=hex:03 MinorNdisVersion=hex:0a _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
J S wrote: Sorry I didn't realise what ls_netdev was before. I will try it tomorrow when I go back to work. Maybe this will bring some light to the problem. Anything suspicious there? Only that the dll reports more accourate values than ls_netdev *g* bye ago Hi Alex, Here's the output I got from running ls_netdex on windows 95: $ ls_netdev-w95 ls_netdev $Id: ls_netdev.c,v 1.6 2002/11/10 16:14:32 ago Exp $ OS Version: Windows 9x 4.0 Build 67306684 B Querying devices using ioctl lo: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=127.0.0.1 eth0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 ppp0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 lo: metric=1 mtu=3924 eth0: metric=1 mtu=1500 ppp0: metric=1 mtu=1500 Querying devices using internal function ifname: driver: NetTrans\0002 IPAddress: 0.0.0.0, IPMask: 0.0.0.0 AdapterName: ifname: 0002 driver: NetTrans\0008 IPAddress: 0.0.0.0, IPMask: 0.0.0.0 AdapterName: MS$PPP lo: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=127.0.0.1 eth0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 ppp0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 Thanks for your help. JS. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
J S wrote: Sorry I didn't realise what ls_netdev was before. I will try it tomorrow when I go back to work. Maybe this will bring some light to the problem. Anything suspicious there? Only that the dll reports more accourate values than ls_netdev *g* bye ago I finally got XDM working on Windows 95 after changing my IP address to fixed. It seems it doesn't work with DHCP (on win 95), is that right? JS _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
J S wrote: Sorry I didn't realise what ls_netdev was before. I will try it tomorrow when I go back to work. Maybe this will bring some light to the problem. Anything suspicious there? Only that the dll reports more accourate values than ls_netdev *g* bye ago NP: Blutengel - Wonderland -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723 Hi Alex, Here's the output I got from ls_netdev, although what's confusing is I'm using a token ring network connection, not ethernet as the output seems to suggest: $ ls_netdev-w95 ls_netdev $Id: ls_netdev.c,v 1.6 2002/11/10 16:14:32 ago Exp $ OS Version: Windows 9x 4.0 Build 67306684 B Querying devices using ioctl lo: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=127.0.0.1 eth0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 ppp0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 lo: metric=1 mtu=3924 eth0: metric=1 mtu=1500 ppp0: metric=1 mtu=1500 Querying devices using internal function ifname: driver: NetTrans\0002 IPAddress: 0.0.0.0, IPMask: 0.0.0.0 AdapterName: ifname: 0002 driver: NetTrans\0008 IPAddress: 0.0.0.0, IPMask: 0.0.0.0 AdapterName: MS$PPP lo: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=127.0.0.1 eth0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 ppp0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, J S wrote: Here's the output I got from ls_netdev, although what's confusing is I'm using a token ring network connection, not ethernet as the output seems to suggest: The code for win95 can only distinguish between ppp and other network interfaces. $ ls_netdev-w95 ls_netdev $Id: ls_netdev.c,v 1.6 2002/11/10 16:14:32 ago Exp $ OS Version: Windows 9x 4.0 Build 67306684 B Querying devices using ioctl lo: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=127.0.0.1 eth0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 That's the problem. Does the adapter get its IP via dhcp? Can you please send me a registry dump of HKLM\\Enum\\Netwok\\MSTCP and HKLM\\System\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\Class\\NetTrans\0002 HKLM\\System\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\Class\\NetTrans\0008 ppp0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 lo: metric=1 mtu=3924 eth0: metric=1 mtu=1500 ppp0: metric=1 mtu=1500 Querying devices using internal function ifname: driver: NetTrans\0002 IPAddress: 0.0.0.0, IPMask: 0.0.0.0 AdapterName: ifname: 0002 driver: NetTrans\0008 IPAddress: 0.0.0.0, IPMask: 0.0.0.0 AdapterName: MS$PPP lo: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=127.0.0.1 eth0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 ppp0: family=TCP/IP (0) addr=0.0.0.0 bye ago -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
J S wrote: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002] DriverDesc=TCP/IP IPAddress=10.252.20.185 This is after you changed the IP-Address to fixed? bye ago -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
J S wrote: Sorry I didn't realise what ls_netdev was before. I will try it tomorrow when I go back to work. Maybe this will bring some light to the problem. Anything suspicious there? Only that the dll reports more accourate values than ls_netdev *g* bye ago NP: Blutengel - Wonderland -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
/ J S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | All i did was : | xwin -query host -fp host:7100 -from mypc | I didn't pass the extra parms so I guess there was a flaw in that | theory! I'm clutching at straws a bit now though 'cos I'm desperate to | sort this out. I would have a look at the source code but I can | imagine it's going to be huge and I haven't got much time left to sort | this out. Would I be right in saying though that the most likely cause | has got to be something windows 95-network related since the original | message said invalid address and this only occurs on win 95? Just another wild thought.. not only VPN.. any other socket handling/protecting software on the 95? Does the machine have winsock 2 (does cygwin require winsock 2?)?? /Andy -- The eye of the beholder rests on the beauty!
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
J S wrote: Would I be right in saying though that the most likely cause has got to be something windows 95-network related since the original message said invalid address and this only occurs on win 95? Have you already tried the ls_netdev tool as suggested? bye ago -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Andrew Markebo wrote: Just another wild thought.. not only VPN.. any other socket handling/protecting software on the 95? Does the machine have winsock 2 (does cygwin require winsock 2?)?? no. cygwin does work even with the old win95a class socket layer bye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
I just found out that if I do: xwin -fullscreen -depth 32 on the win95 machine, XFree fails to start. It only works when I set the depth to 8. Could this explain why I couldn't get xdmcp to work on my windows 95 machine? Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page: XDMCP OPTIONS X servers that support XDMCP have the following options. See the X Display Manager Control Protocol specification for more information. -query host-name Enable XDMCP and send Query packets to the speci- fied host. -broadcast Enable XDMCP and broadcast BroadcastQuery packets to the network. The first responding display man- ager will be chosen for the session. -indirect host-name Enable XDMCP and send IndirectQuery packets to the specified host. -port port-num Use an alternate port number for XDMCP packets. Must be specified before any -query, -broadcast or -indirect options. Thus, you would do something like: XWin -query smpd9 -port 6556 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 Harold J S wrote: Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the interest! Just to get things back into perspective... The reason for choosing some random port number for debugging xdm was because I couldn't kill the daemon on port 177 as this machine is being used by other people . I was able to fire off a solaris desktop session on my windows 95 machine from the xdm on the server, but wasn't sure how to do it the other way round i.e. run the XWin -query command and get it to connect to my xdm debug instance running on the different port. Is this possible? Thanks for the help, JS. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
JS, That depends, were you passing those parameters to XWin.exe when trying to use XDMCP? If you were, then yes, they are likely the reason that XDMCP was failing, as XWin.exe was failing to start. If you were not passing those parameters, then it really does not matter that XWin.exe fails with those parameters, as long as XWin.exe starts when you do not use those parameters. Harold J S wrote: I just found out that if I do: xwin -fullscreen -depth 32 on the win95 machine, XFree fails to start. It only works when I set the depth to 8. Could this explain why I couldn't get xdmcp to work on my windows 95 machine? Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page: XDMCP OPTIONS X servers that support XDMCP have the following options. See the X Display Manager Control Protocol specification for more information. -query host-name Enable XDMCP and send Query packets to the speci- fied host. -broadcast Enable XDMCP and broadcast BroadcastQuery packets to the network. The first responding display man- ager will be chosen for the session. -indirect host-name Enable XDMCP and send IndirectQuery packets to the specified host. -port port-num Use an alternate port number for XDMCP packets. Must be specified before any -query, -broadcast or -indirect options. Thus, you would do something like: XWin -query smpd9 -port 6556 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 Harold J S wrote: Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the interest! Just to get things back into perspective... The reason for choosing some random port number for debugging xdm was because I couldn't kill the daemon on port 177 as this machine is being used by other people . I was able to fire off a solaris desktop session on my windows 95 machine from the xdm on the server, but wasn't sure how to do it the other way round i.e. run the XWin -query command and get it to connect to my xdm debug instance running on the different port. Is this possible? Thanks for the help, JS. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
All i did was : xwin -query host -fp host:7100 -from mypc I didn't pass the extra parms so I guess there was a flaw in that theory! I'm clutching at straws a bit now though 'cos I'm desperate to sort this out. I would have a look at the source code but I can imagine it's going to be huge and I haven't got much time left to sort this out. Would I be right in saying though that the most likely cause has got to be something windows 95-network related since the original message said invalid address and this only occurs on win 95? JS, That depends, were you passing those parameters to XWin.exe when trying to use XDMCP? If you were, then yes, they are likely the reason that XDMCP was failing, as XWin.exe was failing to start. If you were not passing those parameters, then it really does not matter that XWin.exe fails with those parameters, as long as XWin.exe starts when you do not use those parameters. Harold J S wrote: I just found out that if I do: xwin -fullscreen -depth 32 on the win95 machine, XFree fails to start. It only works when I set the depth to 8. Could this explain why I couldn't get xdmcp to work on my windows 95 machine? Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page: XDMCP OPTIONS X servers that support XDMCP have the following options. See the X Display Manager Control Protocol specification for more information. -query host-name Enable XDMCP and send Query packets to the speci- fied host. -broadcast Enable XDMCP and broadcast BroadcastQuery packets to the network. The first responding display man- ager will be chosen for the session. -indirect host-name Enable XDMCP and send IndirectQuery packets to the specified host. -port port-num Use an alternate port number for XDMCP packets. Must be specified before any -query, -broadcast or -indirect options. Thus, you would do something like: XWin -query smpd9 -port 6556 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 Harold J S wrote: Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the interest! Just to get things back into perspective... The reason for choosing some random port number for debugging xdm was because I couldn't kill the daemon on port 177 as this machine is being used by other people . I was able to fire off a solaris desktop session on my windows 95 machine from the xdm on the server, but wasn't sure how to do it the other way round i.e. run the XWin -query command and get it to connect to my xdm debug instance running on the different port. Is this possible? Thanks for the help, JS. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Well, do you have any VPN software installed on the Windows 95 machine, or have you previously had some VPN software installed on that machine? A lot of the VPN programs replace many of the networking files and they are usually incompatible with Cygwin/XFree86. Some of those programs cause problems with Cygwin/XFree86 even when they are not running. A smaller number of these programs do not remove their networking files that they replaced when they are uninstalled, so they permanently make the machine incompatible with Cygwin/XFree86. There is no inherent reason why XDMCP would not work with Windows 95, so I think there is something going on with the software that has been installed on that machine. Harold J S wrote: All i did was : xwin -query host -fp host:7100 -from mypc I didn't pass the extra parms so I guess there was a flaw in that theory! I'm clutching at straws a bit now though 'cos I'm desperate to sort this out. I would have a look at the source code but I can imagine it's going to be huge and I haven't got much time left to sort this out. Would I be right in saying though that the most likely cause has got to be something windows 95-network related since the original message said invalid address and this only occurs on win 95? JS, That depends, were you passing those parameters to XWin.exe when trying to use XDMCP? If you were, then yes, they are likely the reason that XDMCP was failing, as XWin.exe was failing to start. If you were not passing those parameters, then it really does not matter that XWin.exe fails with those parameters, as long as XWin.exe starts when you do not use those parameters. Harold J S wrote: I just found out that if I do: xwin -fullscreen -depth 32 on the win95 machine, XFree fails to start. It only works when I set the depth to 8. Could this explain why I couldn't get xdmcp to work on my windows 95 machine? Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page: XDMCP OPTIONS X servers that support XDMCP have the following options. See the X Display Manager Control Protocol specification for more information. -query host-name Enable XDMCP and send Query packets to the speci- fied host. -broadcast Enable XDMCP and broadcast BroadcastQuery packets to the network. The first responding display man- ager will be chosen for the session. -indirect host-name Enable XDMCP and send IndirectQuery packets to the specified host. -port port-num Use an alternate port number for XDMCP packets. Must be specified before any -query, -broadcast or -indirect options. Thus, you would do something like: XWin -query smpd9 -port 6556 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 Harold J S wrote: Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the interest! Just to get things back into perspective... The reason for choosing some random port number for debugging xdm was because I couldn't kill the daemon on port 177 as this machine is being used by other people . I was able to fire off a solaris desktop session on my windows 95 machine from the xdm on the server, but wasn't sure how to do it the other way round i.e. run the XWin -query command and get it to connect to my xdm debug instance running on the different port. Is this possible? Thanks for the help, JS. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
I tried using the -ac on here as well but it didn't work :( JS. Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page: XDMCP OPTIONS X servers that support XDMCP have the following options. See the X Display Manager Control Protocol specification for more information. -query host-name Enable XDMCP and send Query packets to the speci- fied host. -broadcast Enable XDMCP and broadcast BroadcastQuery packets to the network. The first responding display man- ager will be chosen for the session. -indirect host-name Enable XDMCP and send IndirectQuery packets to the specified host. -port port-num Use an alternate port number for XDMCP packets. Must be specified before any -query, -broadcast or -indirect options. Thus, you would do something like: XWin -query smpd9 -port 6556 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 Harold J S wrote: Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the interest! Just to get things back into perspective... The reason for choosing some random port number for debugging xdm was because I couldn't kill the daemon on port 177 as this machine is being used by other people . I was able to fire off a solaris desktop session on my windows 95 machine from the xdm on the server, but wasn't sure how to do it the other way round i.e. run the XWin -query command and get it to connect to my xdm debug instance running on the different port. Is this possible? Thanks for the help, JS. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, J S wrote: Hi, When I try to run the command: XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm running XFree86 on win XP/2K or NT. But if I try to run this on windows 95, it bombs out. Good. A very short error description with nearly no information. What's in /tmp/XWin.log What does xdm tell Is there any network traffic Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95? It does support windows 95. bye ago The Xwin.log says: Fatal server error: XDMCP fatal error: Session declined No valid address And yes I have read the FAQ and used the -from flag. There aren't any errors in the xdm logs, so I tried to run the xdm in debug: xdm -udpPort 6556 -nodaemon -debug 10 -config /usr/openwin/lib/xdm/xdm-config-debug /dev/fb: No such file or directory Graphics Adapter device /dev/fb is of unknown type Fatal server error: InitOutput: Error loading module for /dev/fb XKillClient 0x80019a XKillClient 0x80019c XKillClient 0x8001a2 .. .. ignoring error ignoring error ignoring error .. .. XKillClient 0x4e before XSync pseudoReset done done secure a57558.abc.com:0 xdm error (pid 13048): fatal IO error 32 (Broken pipe) ignoring error Tried the above a couple more times and it fired up the logon screen on the windows 95 machine, but I couldn't really tell from that why running the xdm from the win95 machine was failing. There weren't any errors produced in the logs either. Is the error above about the Graphics Adapter device significant? Anyway I did a snoop and there's definitely network traffic going on. Any more suggestions? Thanks, JS. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
J S wrote: Fatal server error: XDMCP fatal error: Session declined No valid address And yes I have read the FAQ and used the -from flag. There aren't any errors in the xdm logs, so I tried to run the xdm in debug: xdm -udpPort 6556 -nodaemon -debug 10 -config Why this port? The default port is 177. /usr/openwin/lib/xdm/xdm-config-debug /dev/fb: No such file or directory Graphics Adapter device /dev/fb is of unknown type Fatal server error: InitOutput: Error loading module for /dev/fb XKillClient 0x80019a XKillClient 0x80019c XKillClient 0x8001a2 .. .. ignoring error ignoring error ignoring error .. .. XKillClient 0x4e before XSync pseudoReset done done secure a57558.abc.com:0 xdm error (pid 13048): fatal IO error 32 (Broken pipe) ignoring error I can't find any hint which address was sent to xdm. But the session declined is similar to some errors with win95 we had some time ago. Can you please get http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~goal/xfree/ls_netdev.tar.gz, extract it and send me the output of ls_netdev-w95.exe? Tried the above a couple more times and it fired up the logon screen on the windows 95 machine, but I couldn't really tell from that why running the xdm from the win95 machine was failing. There weren't any errors produced in the logs either. Is the error above about the Graphics Adapter device significant? I guess the is a local display configured in /etc/.../xdm/Xservers Anyway I did a snoop and there's definitely network traffic going on. NP: grauzone.02-12-02 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
--- Alexander Gottwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : J S wrote: Fatal server error: XDMCP fatal error: Session declined No valid address And yes I have read the FAQ and used the -from flag. There aren't any errors in the xdm logs, so I tried to run the xdm in debug: xdm -udpPort 6556 -nodaemon -debug 10 -config Why this port? The default port is 177. Alexander, this exactly Microsoft problem : M$ is building its products thinking all people is using defaults, hiding some bugs that appear only in some cases. Lets f*ck the student case ! We're in real life ! = Sylvain Petreolle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fight against Spam ! http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html ICQ #170597259 Don't think you are. Know you are. Morpheus in Matrix, chapter 15. ___ Soyez solidaire soutenez laction du Téléthon avec Yahoo! France. http://www1.telethon.fr/030-Espace-Relais-Dons/webtirelire1.asp?hebergeur_id=1309
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Sylvain Petreolle wrote: xdm -udpPort 6556 -nodaemon -debug 10 -config Why this port? The default port is 177. Alexander, this exactly Microsoft problem : M$ is building its products thinking all people is using defaults, hiding some bugs that appear only in some cases. If I'm researching a problem, I try to reduce the number of possible failure points. A nondefault port for xdm is such a failure point. Was Xwin started with the correct parameter to reflect this nondefault port? If I could charge the user for support minutes, I would be happy if he would make the problem difficult to solve. You know why I've found that bug in cygwin with win95? Because I've read the documentation. All those man pages, MSDN, FAQ, webpages. I found the error and made a patch. But a lot of questions on this list could be easily solved if the users would read the documentation. bye ago NP: grauzone.02-12-02 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Sylvain, I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? Harold Sylvain Petreolle wrote: --- Alexander Gottwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : J S wrote: Fatal server error: XDMCP fatal error: Session declined No valid address And yes I have read the FAQ and used the -from flag. There aren't any errors in the xdm logs, so I tried to run the xdm in debug: xdm -udpPort 6556 -nodaemon -debug 10 -config Why this port? The default port is 177. Alexander, this exactly Microsoft problem : M$ is building its products thinking all people is using defaults, hiding some bugs that appear only in some cases. Lets f*ck the student case ! We're in real life ! = Sylvain Petreolle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fight against Spam ! http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html ICQ #170597259 Don't think you are. Know you are. Morpheus in Matrix, chapter 15. ___ Soyez solidaire soutenez laction du Téléthon avec Yahoo! France. http://www1.telethon.fr/030-Espace-Relais-Dons/webtirelire1.asp?hebergeur_id=1309
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the interest! Just to get things back into perspective... The reason for choosing some random port number for debugging xdm was because I couldn't kill the daemon on port 177 as this machine is being used by other people . I was able to fire off a solaris desktop session on my windows 95 machine from the xdm on the server, but wasn't sure how to do it the other way round i.e. run the XWin -query command and get it to connect to my xdm debug instance running on the different port. Is this possible? Thanks for the help, JS. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Ah ha... okay, but in this case it would be good to at least rule out the non-standard port as a possible culprit. Once the port is ruled out, we can move on to other possible solutions. Harold Sylvain Petreolle wrote: You're correct, I should have said 'product foo'... I took Microsoft as example because it was the first company I had in mind. I don't have anything against Microsoft, otherwise I wouldn't use Cygwin ;) In the company I'm working now, almost every network TCP port is customized. What I wanted to say is : If the port 1234 is used with some X servers with XDMCP and it crashes, some online customer helpdesk will say : You don't use standard XDMCP port, I can't do anything for you. Get lost. I don't want Cygwin-Xfree to do the same. --- Harold L Hunt II [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf = Sylvain Petreolle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fight against Spam ! http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html ICQ #170597259 Don't think you are. Know you are. Morpheus in Matrix, chapter 15. ___ Soyez solidaire soutenez laction du Téléthon avec Yahoo! France. http://www1.telethon.fr/030-Espace-Relais-Dons/webtirelire1.asp?hebergeur_id=1309
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page: XDMCP OPTIONS X servers that support XDMCP have the following options. See the X Display Manager Control Protocol specification for more information. -query host-name Enable XDMCP and send Query packets to the speci- fied host. -broadcast Enable XDMCP and broadcast BroadcastQuery packets to the network. The first responding display man- ager will be chosen for the session. -indirect host-name Enable XDMCP and send IndirectQuery packets to the specified host. -port port-num Use an alternate port number for XDMCP packets. Must be specified before any -query, -broadcast or -indirect options. Thus, you would do something like: XWin -query smpd9 -port 6556 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 Harold J S wrote: Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down our messages. That's all. Harold Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would have been sufficient, right? AFAICT, it's the standard Cygwin response #13, issued when someone is confused about the process and wants to make a point by letting everyone know how bad Microsoft is and exhorting all of us not to be that way. In other words, it was a value-free message. Alexander's response was perfectly clear and he didn't need to be taken to task for some imagined attitude. cgf Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the interest! Just to get things back into perspective... The reason for choosing some random port number for debugging xdm was because I couldn't kill the daemon on port 177 as this machine is being used by other people . I was able to fire off a solaris desktop session on my windows 95 machine from the xdm on the server, but wasn't sure how to do it the other way round i.e. run the XWin -query command and get it to connect to my xdm debug instance running on the different port. Is this possible? Thanks for the help, JS. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
That's exactly what I have read in Alexander's answer: = Why this port? The default port is 177. Excuse me. Your response would be barely understandable if someone had said Hey don't use a non-standard port! but given that there was no hint of that in Alexander's response and it was very obvious that he was trying to help I think the chiding tone of your message was misplaced. I think maybe you should go back and read what you were responding to again. Maybe you missed that fact. = Sylvain Petreolle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fight against Spam ! http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html ICQ #170597259 Don't think you are. Know you are. Morpheus in Matrix, chapter 15. ___ Soyez solidaire soutenez laction du Téléthon avec Yahoo! France. http://www1.telethon.fr/030-Espace-Relais-Dons/webtirelire1.asp?hebergeur_id=1309
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 04:05:00AM +0100, Sylvain Petreolle wrote: That's exactly what I have read in Alexander's answer: = Why this port? The default port is 177. Excuse me. Um, that was a private message. Poor netiquette, there. cgf
XDMCP on Windows 95
Hi, When I try to run the command: XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm running XFree86 on win XP/2K or NT. But if I try to run this on windows 95, it bombs out. Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95? Thanks for any help, JS. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
From: J S [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: XDMCP on Windows 95 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:14:28 + Hi, When I try to run the command: XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm running XFree86 on win XP/2K or NT. But if I try to run this on windows 95, it bombs out. Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95? Definitely not as I got it running on several Win95 machines on our institute. Does the name resolving work? Does it run locally? Without the -fp stuff? Cheers Edi
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
Hi, When I try to run the command: XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm running XFree86 on win XP/2K or NT. But if I try to run this on windows 95, it bombs out. Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95? Definitely not as I got it running on several Win95 machines on our institute. Does the name resolving work? Does it run locally? Without the -fp stuff? Cheers Edi There are no problems with the name resolving and XFree86 runs OK on the localhost. I have tested this on two win 95 machines now (one is a fresh win 95 install) and both exhibit the same problem. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, J S wrote: Hi, When I try to run the command: XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm running XFree86 on win XP/2K or NT. But if I try to run this on windows 95, it bombs out. Good. A very short error description with nearly no information. What's in /tmp/XWin.log What does xdm tell Is there any network traffic Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95? It does support windows 95. bye ago
Re: XDMCP on Windows 95
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, J S wrote: Hi, When I try to run the command: XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447 that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm running XFree86 on win XP/2K or NT. But if I try to run this on windows 95, it bombs out. Good. A very short error description with nearly no information. What's in /tmp/XWin.log What does xdm tell Is there any network traffic Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95? It does support windows 95. bye ago Thanks, and sorry for the poor error description. I didn't realise there was an xwin log. Do you know where the xdm log (on solaris) is as well? Anyway the main thing is everyone said it works on windows 95. Thanks for your reply. JS. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
