James Michael Newton wrote: > > First, thanks tons for the help. > > Thanks to your oops trick, I found out that the startx command was waiting > for something to resolve the host name which I had set as nix.massmind.org > without adding > 192.168.0.3 nix.massmind.org > to the hosts file. So x is up again. I'm GUI. > > The 254 broadcast address was a typo, it was set to .255 and it looks like > all the other settings were also correct. I shouldn't be able to ping > outside the local net without a proxy connection... and... I managed to > stumble over the fact that the "Navigator" that was automatically starting > with Linux was not the actual Netscape Navigator web browser... see, the > first one, DOESN'T have a place to enter Proxy setting and the second one > DOES. And you know what? as soon as you enter the proxy settings, everything > works great! Imagine that.... > > So now I have web and ftp access from the nix box via a proxy server on the > main windows box. I'll set up the email stuff next (I saw where to do > that...) > > But I'd like to get SAMBA running next and haven't read the docs yet, so I > will go do that now. And then on to Apache and BIND. Miles to go... > > James Newton > mailto:jamesnewton@geocities.com > 1-619-652-0593 phone > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike Werner > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 16:11 > Subject: Re: [OT]:Linix help for a Windows Networker? > > > James Michael Newton wrote: > > > Well, I hate to admit this, but after god knows how many Windows and > Novell > > > networks that I've set up and / or administered, I can't seem to get Red > Hat > > > 6.1 to talk on the network to my two windows computers (which work just > fine > > > thank you, so it must be Linux and not me, right? ) > > > > Micro$oft isn't very good at playing nice with other OS's on the same LAN. > > Never has been, and probably never will. But it's usually possible to > > trick it into doing so. > > > > > I've been trying to use the graphical network setup in the control panel > > > (since I'm a GUI Guy although the DOS Command line is where I started > and I > > > know that well and I've had plenty of time in the Novell config program) > but > > > now suddenly, when I type startx, nothing starts. it just sits there > forever > > > and then returns me to a prompt when I hit ctrl-c. no error messages. > Any > > > ideas on how to get that back would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Try issuing: > > startx >oops 2>&1 > > What that will do is put all of the startup messages into a file called > oops > > in the current working directory. We might be able to find something in > that > > file to tell what's going wrong. > > > > Were you doing any package upgrades? Remove any packages? Either of > those > > could have done it. Red Hat's package manager is pretty lame when it > comes > > to dependancy resolution. It'll often let you remove a package that > another > > package depends on. > > > > > > Of course, if you switched over to Debian you'd have a package manager > > that's *way* better than RPM. > > > > > > > I have a Windows PC with two TCP/IP stacks configured (one is the IP > address > > > assigned by the cable modem service 24.15.132.183 subnet mask > > > 255.255.255.128 Gateway 24.15.132.129 domain escnd1.sdca.home.com Host > > > massmind and the other is 192.168.0.1 subnet mask 255.255.255.0 no > gateway > > > domain escnd1.sdca.home.com host massmind) and I'm running Proxy Plus to > > > > I'm not familiar with Proxy Plus. I take it it's something like Wingate? > > > > > serve the other Windows machine which is 192.168.0.2 and has its gateway > > > address set to 192.168.0.1 with internet settings in the control panel > set > > > to use a proxy server at 192.168.0.1:4480 for all access. That works > fine. > > > > > > The Linux box is 192.168.0.3 subnet mask 255.255.255.0 network > 192.168.0.0 > > > broadcast 192.168.0.254 and default gateway 192.168.0.1 (the proxy > server) > > ^^^ > > Broadcast should be 192.168.0.255 > > > > > as per > > > http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Net-HOWTO-5.html > > > it appears that > > > /etc/rc.d/init.d/network calls > > > /etc/sysconfig/network which is: > > > NETWORKING=yes > > > FORWARD_IPV4="yes" > > > HOSTNAME=nix.massmind.org > > > GATEWAY="192.168.0.1" > > > GATEWAYDEV=eth0 > > > IPX="yes" > > > IPXINTERNALNETNUM="0" > > > IPXINTERNALNODENUM="0" > > > IPXAUTOPRIMARY="on" > > > IPXAUTOFRAME="on" > > > but after that I just get lost so I don't understand why but > > > route shows me > > > Destination Gateway Genmask flags Metric Ref Use Iface > > > 192.168.0.3 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0 > > > 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > > > 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo > > > > > > default 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 > > > > This all looks correct. Well, at any rate it's *very* similar to what > > I've got here. But that first line is, as far as I know, not needed. > > Also, show the output of: > > ifconfig > > > > > I can ping 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.0.3 as expected. > > > > > > I can ping 192.168.0.1 and 24.15.132.183 (the two TCP/IP stacks on the > > > main Windows server) although they respond twice for every one ping > > > (a "DUP" shows up after the second one.) > > > > HAL9000:~# ping 24.15.132.183 > > PING 24.15.132.183 (24.15.132.183): 56 data bytes > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=0 ttl=114 time=322.4 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=1 ttl=114 time=306.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=1 ttl=114 time=316.0 ms (DUP!) > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=2 ttl=114 time=406.1 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=2 ttl=114 time=415.9 ms (DUP!) > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=3 ttl=114 time=296.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=3 ttl=114 time=305.7 ms (DUP!) > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=4 ttl=114 time=305.9 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.183: icmp_seq=4 ttl=114 time=315.6 ms (DUP!) > > > > --- 24.15.132.183 ping statistics --- > > 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, +4 duplicates, 0% packet loss > > round-trip min/avg/max = 296.0/332.1/415.9 ms > > > > As do I from here. Strange. > > > > > I can't ping 192.168.0.2 or any known good ip addresses out on the > > > internet. No even the cable modem gateway at 24.15.132.129. > > > > HAL9000:~# ping 24.15.132.129 > > PING 24.15.132.129 (24.15.132.129): 56 data bytes > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=1466.6 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=1901.8 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=2 ttl=242 time=2363.6 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=3 ttl=242 time=2383.4 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=4 ttl=242 time=2843.3 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=5 ttl=242 time=2843.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=6 ttl=242 time=2863.1 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=7 ttl=242 time=2862.8 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=8 ttl=242 time=1893.2 ms > > 64 bytes from 24.15.132.129: icmp_seq=9 ttl=242 time=903.4 ms > > > > --- 24.15.132.129 ping statistics --- > > 11 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 9% packet loss > > round-trip min/avg/max = 903.4/2232.4/2863.1 ms > > > > *Very* slow, with one packet lost. Perhaps they were just having a bad > > time when you tried? Nah, that's probably not it. I'm suspecting it > > might be ipchains that's doing this to you. Try issuing: > > ipchains -L > > and see what it says. Sometimes the default setting for ipchains are > > a bit *too* restrictive. > > > > > Netscape couldn't http anything either, including 24.15.132.183 which is > > > running an http server or 24.15.132.129 or 240.210.50.240 which all work > > > from the windows machine (both of them). Of course I can't get to it > > > anymore since, remember, x-windows will not start anymore.... I really > > > don't know what I did. > > > > Try it with lynx. That's a command line browser. Let's work on the > > networking first, then we'll worry about the GUI stuff. > > -- > > Mike Werner KA8YSD | "Where do you want to go today?" > > | "As far from Redmond as possible!" > > '91 GS500E | > > Morgantown WV | Only dead fish go with the flow. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com there are some pretty decent web based samba configuration tools out there which make configuring it alot easier after you get the basics working.. I cant remember off hand right now but I'm sure a search engine can find them quite well.. Damon Hopkins