Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SUSE Linux Users] Can't set up DSL

Expand Messages
  • Horror Vacui
    On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:51:59 +0100 ... Is this the IP address you re supposed to have in order to get connected? I suppose you re talking about an ethernet
    Message 1 of 21 , Dec 7, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:51:59 +0100
      Michael wrote:

      > Hi,
      >
      > I recently installed 9.1 on my desktop (dual boot with XP Pro). In my
      > XP setup, the desktop is the gateway (192.168.0.1) for Internet
      > Connection Sharing to 2 other machines. My laptop (XP Home dual booted
      > with SuSE 8.2) is 192.168.0.3. The third computer is rarely used at
      > this point, so I'm not factoring that one into this.
      >
      > I've tried to set up a DSL connection on the Linux side of the
      > desktop, and I've configured the network card with the IP address
      > 192.168.0.1, not using DHCP to get an address. I enter in all the
      > provider information (T-Online), but I can't get it to connect.

      Is this the IP address you're supposed to have in order to get
      connected? I suppose you're talking about an ethernet interface
      connected with the ADSL moddem?

      > I've
      > noticed that at boot, I get a message saying that the network service
      > failed and the the eth0 interface could not be setup.

      According to your ifconfig, everything's fine, and the ability to ping
      confirms that.

      >
      > Doing the reverse of this (XP w/ICS on the desktop and Linux on the
      > laptop) works perfectly; both can get on the Internet. (I haven't
      > tried Linux on*both* sides yet; one thing at a time =) )

      If I were you, I wouldn't let XP connect to the internet directly. It'd
      be far better if you shifted your machines around a bit, and made this
      rarely used third computer your gateway/firewall, running Linux. I have
      a similar configuration (except that my gateway is OpenBSD and I have no
      Microsoft software running on my machines), and apart from the security
      it offers, it's also a very practical thing to have.


      > pppd[0]: Using interface ppp0
      > Status is: connecting
      > pppd[0]: Connect: ppp0 <--> eth0
      > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MTU to 1500
      > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MRU to 1500
      > pppd[0]: Remote message: Zugriff verweigert
      > pppd[0]: PAP authentication failed
      > Authentication error. Maybe bad account or password.
      > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MTU to 1500
      > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MRU to 1500
      > pppd[0]: Connection terminated.
      > Status is: disconnected
      > pppd[0] died: Authentication error (exit code 19)

      I think that the "Authentication error" is the key here. It doesn't
      necessarily mean that the username and password you used are incorrect,
      it can also mean that the way you tried to authenticate is wrong. The
      "Zugriff verweigert" (Access denied) message might indicate that your
      ISP won't allow PAP authentication, and requires something like CHAP or
      MSCHAPv2. Try to find out about possible authentication methods, and
      than you can set the required one in your /etc/ppp/options configuration
      file by adding a line like this (if my memory serves me correctly):

      +chap

      ...or exclude PAP from use with:

      refuse-pap

      Cheers

      --
      Horror Vacui

      Registered Linux user #257714

      Go get yourself... counted: http://counter.li.org/
      - and keep following the GNU.
    • Aaron Kulkis
      ... ^^^^^^^^^^^ You gave TWO Computers the same IP address, and you re wondering why they aren t communicating properly????
      Message 2 of 21 , Dec 7, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Horror Vacui wrote:
        > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:51:59 +0100
        > Michael wrote:
        >
        >
        >>Hi,
        >>
        >>I recently installed 9.1 on my desktop (dual boot with XP Pro). In my
        >>XP setup, the desktop is the gateway (192.168.0.1) for Internet
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        >>Connection Sharing to 2 other machines. My laptop (XP Home dual booted
        >>with SuSE 8.2) is 192.168.0.3. The third computer is rarely used at
        >>this point, so I'm not factoring that one into this.
        >>
        >>I've tried to set up a DSL connection on the Linux side of the
        >>desktop, and I've configured the network card with the IP address
        >>192.168.0.1, not using DHCP to get an address. I enter in all the
        ^^^^^^^^^^^

        You gave TWO Computers the same IP address, and you're wondering
        why they aren't communicating properly????
      • Horror Vacui
        On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:27:27 -0500 ... No, he didn t. Read again. Those aren t two computers, it s a dual-boot machine he uses as a gateway while running XP
        Message 3 of 21 , Dec 7, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:27:27 -0500
          Aaron wrote:

          > Horror Vacui wrote:
          > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:51:59 +0100
          > > Michael wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >>Hi,
          > >>
          > >>I recently installed 9.1 on my desktop (dual boot with XP Pro). In
          > >my>XP setup, the desktop is the gateway (192.168.0.1) for Internet
          > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          > >>Connection Sharing to 2 other machines. My laptop (XP Home dual
          > >booted>with SuSE 8.2) is 192.168.0.3. The third computer is rarely
          > >used at>this point, so I'm not factoring that one into this.
          > >>
          > >>I've tried to set up a DSL connection on the Linux side of the
          > >>desktop, and I've configured the network card with the IP address
          > >>192.168.0.1, not using DHCP to get an address. I enter in all the
          > ^^^^^^^^^^^
          >
          > You gave TWO Computers the same IP address, and you're wondering
          > why they aren't communicating properly????

          No, he didn't. Read again. Those aren't two computers, it's a dual-boot
          machine he uses as a gateway while running XP (baaaaad idea). Now he
          wants to do the same with Linux, but can't connect to the net. The
          communication in the internal network wasn't even mentioned IIRC.

          Oh, by the way: if you're referring to what the OP said, please reply to
          his message, not mine. This somewhat confuses me, and I'm too easily
          confused... ;)

          Cheers

          --
          Horror Vacui

          Registered Linux user #257714

          Go get yourself... counted: http://counter.li.org/
          - and keep following the GNU.
        • Michael Trozzo
          ... From: Horror Vacui [mailto:horrorvacui@gmx.net] Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2004 03:52 To: suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [SUSE Linux Users]
          Message 4 of 21 , Dec 9, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Horror Vacui [mailto:horrorvacui@...]
            Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2004 03:52
            To: suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [SUSE Linux Users] Can't set up DSL


            On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:27:27 -0500
            Aaron wrote:

            > Horror Vacui wrote:
            > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:51:59 +0100
            > > Michael wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >>Hi,
            > >>
            > >>I recently installed 9.1 on my desktop (dual boot with XP Pro). In
            > >my>XP setup, the desktop is the gateway (192.168.0.1) for Internet
            > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
            > >>Connection Sharing to 2 other machines. My laptop (XP Home dual
            > >booted>with SuSE 8.2) is 192.168.0.3. The third computer is rarely
            > >used at>this point, so I'm not factoring that one into this.
            > >>
            > >>I've tried to set up a DSL connection on the Linux side of the
            > >>desktop, and I've configured the network card with the IP address
            > >>192.168.0.1, not using DHCP to get an address. I enter in all the
            > ^^^^^^^^^^^
            >
            > You gave TWO Computers the same IP address, and you're wondering
            > why they aren't communicating properly????

            No, he didn't. Read again. Those aren't two computers, it's a dual-boot
            machine he uses as a gateway while running XP (baaaaad idea). Now he
            wants to do the same with Linux, but can't connect to the net. The
            communication in the internal network wasn't even mentioned IIRC.

            Oh, by the way: if you're referring to what the OP said, please reply to
            his message, not mine. This somewhat confuses me, and I'm too easily
            confused... ;)




            I thought that there would be something similar to ICS that is available in

            Windows. (must...stop...windows-type thinking). ICS provides a gateway and
            NAT through one interface. I'll have to reconfigure my hub tomorrow. Right
            now, I have the three machines plugged into it, and then the uplink to the
            DSL modem. It sounds to me from some searching I've done (please don't
            hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong) like I should take the line from eth0 and
            go directly into the modem, not even bothering with the uplink port on the
            hub. Then
            I'll drop a second card in, set that up as the gateway (192.168.0.1) through

            which the rest of the network can reach the Internet.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Horror Vacui
            On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:08:20 +0100 ... What I said here, also applies vice-versa... If you re referring to what I said, please reply to my message, not the
            Message 5 of 21 , Dec 9, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:08:20 +0100
              Michael wrote:

              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Horror Vacui [mailto:horrorvacui@...]
              > Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2004 03:52
              > To: suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [SUSE Linux Users] Can't set up DSL
              >
              > Oh, by the way: if you're referring to what the OP said, please reply
              > to his message, not mine. This somewhat confuses me, and I'm too
              > easily confused... ;)

              What I said here, also applies vice-versa... If you're referring to what
              I said, please reply to my message, not the other poster's.

              >
              > I thought that there would be something similar to ICS that is
              > available in
              >
              > Windows. (must...stop...windows-type thinking).

              Yep, there you go.

              Years ago, as I was still using SuSE (7.1 then), there _was_ something
              comparable. Enabling NAT was a matter of changing one "no" to "yes", and
              it worked. I was still pretty much a newbie at that time (and quite
              proficient with Windows), but I failed with Windows and succeeded with
              Linux. I'd be surprised if SuSE has nothing like that now. I can't help
              you with that though - whenever I had to configure a gateway on a newer
              version of SuSE, I found it easier to edit the iptables rules manually
              instead of finding out the SuSE way...

              > ICS provides a gateway
              > and NAT through one interface.

              I know. I ran Windows once, and I'm an MCSE... The ISC annoyed the hell
              out of me the moment I tried to use it, by configuring my NIC to a
              different address, and trying to assign addresses to other machines...
              The NIC connecting to the ADSL modem must have an address from the
              10.0.0.0/24 range. Bloody lucky that the modem was configured not to
              accept addresses assigned via DHCP, else I'd be screwed. I spent too
              much time already trying to figure out why the hell my entire network
              stopped functioning.

              The ISC is the Microsoft solution the type of "Complicated stuff that
              complete idiots can work".
              Whenever they try to hide complexity from the user like that, something
              goes awry. Personally, I prefer knowing what's happening.

              > I'll have to reconfigure my hub
              > tomorrow. Right now, I have the three machines plugged into it, and
              > then the uplink to the DSL modem. It sounds to me from some searching
              > I've done (please don't hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong) like I
              > should take the line from eth0 and go directly into the modem, not
              > even bothering with the uplink port on the hub. Then
              > I'll drop a second card in, set that up as the gateway (192.168.0.1)
              > through which the rest of the network can reach the Internet.

              Both methods are possible. You can configure one NIC on the Linux
              machine to have two IP addresses, thus being a member of two subnets -
              one for the communication with the modem, one for your internal network.
              I tried it out, it works quite nicely. However, I'm a fan of
              straightforward solutions, so I have two NICs in my gateway, one
              connecting to modem, the other connecting to the switch taking care of
              my internal network. Whichever you choose, it doesn't really matter.
              With ADSL you probably don't have enough bandwidth to satiate even a 10
              mbps link, let alone a 100. Firewall will work properly even though
              internal and external connexions run through the same cable.

              My advice is to choose the two-NIC solution. It's easier to understand
              and manage, and NIC's cost next to nothing these days...

              Cheers

              --
              Horror Vacui

              Registered Linux user #257714

              Go get yourself... counted: http://counter.li.org/
              - and keep following the GNU.
            • reborn reincarnated
              ... my XP ... Connection ... SuSE 8.2) ... I m not ... desktop, and ... not using ... Online), ... message ... could not ... each ... laptop) ... Linux on ...
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Trozzo" <trozzo@a...>
                wrote:
                > Hi,
                >
                > I recently installed 9.1 on my desktop (dual boot with XP Pro). In
                my XP
                > setup, the desktop is the gateway (192.168.0.1) for Internet
                Connection
                > Sharing to 2 other machines. My laptop (XP Home dual booted with
                SuSE 8.2)
                > is 192.168.0.3. The third computer is rarely used at this point, so
                I'm not
                > factoring that one into this.
                >
                > I've tried to set up a DSL connection on the Linux side of the
                desktop, and
                > I've configured the network card with the IP address 192.168.0.1,
                not using
                > DHCP to get an address. I enter in all the provider information (T-
                Online),
                > but I can't get it to connect. I've noticed that at boot, I get a
                message
                > saying that the network service failed and the the eth0 interface
                could not
                > be setup. However, the desktop (SuSE) and laptop (XP Home) can ping
                each
                > other back and forth. I'm not using a router, just a hub.
                >
                > Doing the reverse of this (XP w/ICS on the desktop and Linux on the
                laptop)
                > works perfectly; both can get on the Internet. (I haven't tried
                Linux on
                > *both* sides yet; one thing at a time =) )
                >
                > Here's my ifconfig:
                > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:B0:D0:18:41:43
                > inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255
                Mask:255.255.255.0
                > inet6 addr: fe80::2b0:d0ff:fe18:4143/64 Scope:Link
                > UP BROADCAST NOTRAILERS RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500
                Metric:1
                > RX packets:3302 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:14 frame:0
                > TX packets:422 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
                > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
                > RX bytes:219471 (214.3 Kb) TX bytes:46416 (45.3 Kb)
                > Interrupt:3 Base address:0xe800
                >
                > lo Link encap:Local Loopback
                > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
                > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
                > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
                > RX packets:736 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
                > TX packets:736 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
                > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
                > RX bytes:48218 (47.0 Kb) TX bytes:48218 (47.0 Kb)
                >
                > And here's the log from KInternet when I attempt to connect:
                > SuSE Meta pppd (smpppd-ifcfg), Version 1.16 on linux.
                > Status is: disconnected
                > trying to connect to smpppd
                > connect to smpppd
                > Status is: disconnected
                > Interface is eth0.
                > Status is: connecting
                > pppd[0]: Plugin rp-pppoe.so loaded.
                > pppd[0]: RP-PPPoE plugin version 3.3 compiled against pppd 2.4.2
                > pppd[0]: Plugin passwordfd.so loaded.
                > pppd[0]: Using interface ppp0
                > Status is: connecting
                > pppd[0]: Connect: ppp0 <--> eth0
                > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MTU to 1500
                > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MRU to 1500
                > pppd[0]: Remote message: Zugriff verweigert
                > pppd[0]: PAP authentication failed
                > Authentication error. Maybe bad account or password.
                > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MTU to 1500
                > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MRU to 1500
                > pppd[0]: Connection terminated.
                > Status is: disconnected
                > pppd[0] died: Authentication error (exit code 19)
                >
                >
                > I've checked and rechecked the login information, and it's
                identical to that
                > on the XP side. Does anyone have ideas on this?
                >
                > Thanks,
                > Mike
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                hi people,
                I think I have a similar problem, i used to have an internet
                connection through the cable by an ethernet card. Recently, i changed
                to ADSL with a modem that works through the USB port. The Modem is
                globespan/virata's usb modem(in fact its generic name is Picatel). I
                am not new to Suse but I am afraid I am just a simple home user who
                has no idea about what behind the screen is. I think the problem is
                suse does not recognize my modem via USB. And my ADSL modem has no
                support for linux. I am not sure if I am asking the right questions
                but is there a way to fix it or should I go and buy a new modem.
                best wishes and happy new year to all
              • Richard Farla
                ... Hi, I have no expirience with usb-adslmodems but I would not choose them anyway. I would ALWAYS advice a ethernetmodem and normally they MUST work in
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  > hi people,
                  > I think I have a similar problem, i used to have an internet
                  > connection through the cable by an ethernet card. Recently, i changed
                  > to ADSL with a modem that works through the USB port. The Modem is
                  > globespan/virata's usb modem(in fact its generic name is Picatel). I
                  > am not new to Suse but I am afraid I am just a simple home user who
                  > has no idea about what behind the screen is. I think the problem is
                  > suse does not recognize my modem via USB. And my ADSL modem has no
                  > support for linux. I am not sure if I am asking the right questions
                  > but is there a way to fix it or should I go and buy a new modem.
                  > best wishes and happy new year to all

                  Hi,

                  I have no expirience with usb-adslmodems but I would not choose them anyway.
                  I would ALWAYS advice a ethernetmodem and normally they MUST work in linux.
                  (we are not talking "wireless" here I guess)

                  Richard
                • reborn reincarnated
                  ... anyway. ... linux. ... thank you, I think, I was over-confident in myself when I went and bought sth without a proper research, I had thought that the
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Richard Farla <r.farla@h...> wrote:
                    > > hi people,
                    > > I think I have a similar problem, i used to have an internet
                    > > connection through the cable by an ethernet card. Recently, i changed
                    > > to ADSL with a modem that works through the USB port. The Modem is
                    > > globespan/virata's usb modem(in fact its generic name is Picatel). I
                    > > am not new to Suse but I am afraid I am just a simple home user who
                    > > has no idea about what behind the screen is. I think the problem is
                    > > suse does not recognize my modem via USB. And my ADSL modem has no
                    > > support for linux. I am not sure if I am asking the right questions
                    > > but is there a way to fix it or should I go and buy a new modem.
                    > > best wishes and happy new year to all
                    >
                    > Hi,
                    >
                    > I have no expirience with usb-adslmodems but I would not choose them
                    anyway.
                    > I would ALWAYS advice a ethernetmodem and normally they MUST work in
                    linux.
                    > (we are not talking "wireless" here I guess)
                    >
                    > Richard

                    thank you,
                    I think, I was over-confident in myself when I went and bought sth
                    without a proper research, I had thought that the linux programmers
                    had already found a solution for it. I think, I have to face the truth
                    my fifty bucks are gone or I will have to keep on with the other
                    interface. I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for
                    help.
                    kind regards
                  • Richard Farla
                    I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for ... Hi again, In my knowlegde a usb-modem uses virtual drivers and that is something linux will
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for
                      >
                      Hi again,

                      In my knowlegde a usb-modem uses "virtual" drivers and that is something linux will not like at all: virtual is NOT REAL so with "virtual" you must stay in a "virtual" world (like Windows) ;)

                      You only could try to contact the manufactorer of the modem and asked if they can provided a driver which will work under linux, but I think it will not excist.

                      Richard.
                    • Horror Vacui
                      On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:20:07 +0100 ... It s not about virtual drivers, it s about virtual hardware. In order to save cost, the manufacturers are omitting parts
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:20:07 +0100
                        Richard wrote:

                        > I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for
                        > >
                        > Hi again,
                        >
                        > In my knowlegde a usb-modem uses "virtual" drivers and that is
                        > something linux will not like at all: virtual is NOT REAL so with
                        > "virtual" you must stay in a "virtual" world (like Windows) ;)

                        It's not about virtual drivers, it's about virtual hardware. In order to
                        save cost, the manufacturers are omitting parts that are normally
                        necessary for the function of the hardware. This, applied to modems,
                        results in a thing called a winmodem, which is nothing else than a
                        soundcard with a telephone plug in it. All that such a thing has in
                        common with a real modem is the dsp (digital signal processor),
                        everything else (like A/D D/A converter, controllers) is missing,
                        therefore the processor and other computer hardware has to deal with
                        encoding the traffic. This is bad for various reasons.

                        First of all, the manufacturer will provide Windows driver only as a
                        rule. The protocols needed to drive the hardware are proprietary,
                        there's no standard, and the manufacturers won't give them to the
                        community. So writing a driver for Linux is pretty much a huge task,
                        with little gain.

                        Even with Windows, where a winmodem will work, it's not advisable to use
                        one anyway - there's a considerable performance penalty, because modem
                        communication is a real-time task, and computers are not designed to do
                        such tasks.

                        However, only after I wrote this I saw that it was about a xDSL modem -
                        they are different than modems, and most of them work with Linux as far
                        as I know.

                        Cheers

                        --
                        Horror Vacui

                        Registered Linux user #257714

                        Go get yourself... counted: http://counter.li.org/
                        - and keep following the GNU.
                      • Arthur A. McClure
                        ... I think that your DSL router has to be 192.168.0.1 and that you shouldn t assign a network address to your card, but rather enable DHCP and let the router
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, "reborn reincarnated"
                          <unfurled_by_dawn@y...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Trozzo" <trozzo@a...>
                          > wrote:
                          > > Hi,
                          > >
                          > > I recently installed 9.1 on my desktop (dual boot with XP Pro). In
                          > my XP
                          > > setup, the desktop is the gateway (192.168.0.1) for Internet
                          > Connection
                          > > Sharing to 2 other machines. My laptop (XP Home dual booted with
                          > SuSE 8.2)
                          > > is 192.168.0.3. The third computer is rarely used at this point, so
                          > I'm not
                          > > factoring that one into this.
                          > >
                          > > I've tried to set up a DSL connection on the Linux side of the
                          > desktop, and
                          > > I've configured the network card with the IP address 192.168.0.1,
                          > not using
                          > > DHCP to get an address. I enter in all the provider information (T-
                          > Online),
                          > > but I can't get it to connect. I've noticed that at boot, I get a
                          > message
                          > > saying that the network service failed and the the eth0 interface
                          > could not
                          > > be setup. However, the desktop (SuSE) and laptop (XP Home) can ping
                          > each
                          > > other back and forth. I'm not using a router, just a hub.
                          > >
                          > > Doing the reverse of this (XP w/ICS on the desktop and Linux on the
                          > laptop)
                          > > works perfectly; both can get on the Internet. (I haven't tried
                          > Linux on
                          > > *both* sides yet; one thing at a time =) )
                          > >
                          > > Here's my ifconfig:
                          > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:B0:D0:18:41:43
                          > > inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255
                          > Mask:255.255.255.0
                          > > inet6 addr: fe80::2b0:d0ff:fe18:4143/64 Scope:Link
                          > > UP BROADCAST NOTRAILERS RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500
                          > Metric:1
                          > > RX packets:3302 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:14 frame:0
                          > > TX packets:422 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
                          > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
                          > > RX bytes:219471 (214.3 Kb) TX bytes:46416 (45.3 Kb)
                          > > Interrupt:3 Base address:0xe800
                          > >
                          > > lo Link encap:Local Loopback
                          > > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
                          > > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
                          > > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
                          > > RX packets:736 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
                          > > TX packets:736 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
                          > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
                          > > RX bytes:48218 (47.0 Kb) TX bytes:48218 (47.0 Kb)
                          > >
                          > > And here's the log from KInternet when I attempt to connect:
                          > > SuSE Meta pppd (smpppd-ifcfg), Version 1.16 on linux.
                          > > Status is: disconnected
                          > > trying to connect to smpppd
                          > > connect to smpppd
                          > > Status is: disconnected
                          > > Interface is eth0.
                          > > Status is: connecting
                          > > pppd[0]: Plugin rp-pppoe.so loaded.
                          > > pppd[0]: RP-PPPoE plugin version 3.3 compiled against pppd 2.4.2
                          > > pppd[0]: Plugin passwordfd.so loaded.
                          > > pppd[0]: Using interface ppp0
                          > > Status is: connecting
                          > > pppd[0]: Connect: ppp0 <--> eth0
                          > > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MTU to 1500
                          > > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MRU to 1500
                          > > pppd[0]: Remote message: Zugriff verweigert
                          > > pppd[0]: PAP authentication failed
                          > > Authentication error. Maybe bad account or password.
                          > > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MTU to 1500
                          > > pppd[0]: Couldn't increase MRU to 1500
                          > > pppd[0]: Connection terminated.
                          > > Status is: disconnected
                          > > pppd[0] died: Authentication error (exit code 19)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > I've checked and rechecked the login information, and it's
                          > identical to that
                          > > on the XP side. Does anyone have ideas on this?
                          > >
                          > > Thanks,
                          > > Mike
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          > hi people,
                          > I think I have a similar problem, i used to have an internet
                          > connection through the cable by an ethernet card. Recently, i changed
                          > to ADSL with a modem that works through the USB port. The Modem is
                          > globespan/virata's usb modem(in fact its generic name is Picatel). I
                          > am not new to Suse but I am afraid I am just a simple home user who
                          > has no idea about what behind the screen is. I think the problem is
                          > suse does not recognize my modem via USB. And my ADSL modem has no
                          > support for linux. I am not sure if I am asking the right questions
                          > but is there a way to fix it or should I go and buy a new modem.
                          > best wishes and happy new year to all

                          I think that your DSL router has to be 192.168.0.1 and that you
                          shouldn't assign a network address to your card, but rather enable
                          DHCP and let the router assign an address. Maybe.

                          Art
                        • Aaron Kulkis
                          ... Actually, you have it reversed. Winmodems have A/D and D/A converters (there s no way to recieve or generate and audio signal without them), What they ARE
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Horror Vacui wrote:
                            > On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:20:07 +0100
                            > Richard wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >>I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for
                            >>
                            >>Hi again,
                            >>
                            >>In my knowlegde a usb-modem uses "virtual" drivers and that is
                            >>something linux will not like at all: virtual is NOT REAL so with
                            >>"virtual" you must stay in a "virtual" world (like Windows) ;)
                            >
                            >
                            > It's not about virtual drivers, it's about virtual hardware. In order to
                            > save cost, the manufacturers are omitting parts that are normally
                            > necessary for the function of the hardware. This, applied to modems,
                            > results in a thing called a winmodem, which is nothing else than a
                            > soundcard with a telephone plug in it. All that such a thing has in
                            > common with a real modem is the dsp (digital signal processor),
                            > everything else (like A/D D/A converter, controllers) is missing,
                            > therefore the processor and other computer hardware has to deal with
                            > encoding the traffic. This is bad for various reasons.
                            >

                            Actually, you have it reversed. Winmodems have A/D and D/A converters
                            (there's no way to recieve or generate and audio signal without them),
                            What they ARE missing is the DSP chips...and THAT is why LOSEmodems
                            have "minimum CPU" requirements, and load down the CPU like a hog...
                            because the system CPU is doing the DSP and controller work which
                            should properly be done within the modem hardware.


                            > First of all, the manufacturer will provide Windows driver only as a
                            > rule. The protocols needed to drive the hardware are proprietary,
                            > there's no standard, and the manufacturers won't give them to the
                            > community. So writing a driver for Linux is pretty much a huge task,
                            > with little gain.
                            >
                            > Even with Windows, where a winmodem will work, it's not advisable to use
                            > one anyway - there's a considerable performance penalty, because modem
                            > communication is a real-time task, and computers are not designed to do
                            > such tasks.

                            Yep. See above.

                            >
                            > However, only after I wrote this I saw that it was about a xDSL modem -
                            > they are different than modems, and most of them work with Linux as far
                            > as I know.

                            Modems are modems are modoms.... MODEM = MODulator/DEModulator

                            different frequency range, same task.

                            >
                            > Cheers
                            >
                          • reborn reincarnated
                            ... order to ... to use ... to do ... modem - ... as far ... Hi, I have my new real modem and it works very well, and I have bought some stuff that is supposed
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jan 14, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...> wrote:
                              > Horror Vacui wrote:
                              > > On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:20:07 +0100
                              > > Richard wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >>I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for
                              > >>
                              > >>Hi again,
                              > >>
                              > >>In my knowlegde a usb-modem uses "virtual" drivers and that is
                              > >>something linux will not like at all: virtual is NOT REAL so with
                              > >>"virtual" you must stay in a "virtual" world (like Windows) ;)
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > It's not about virtual drivers, it's about virtual hardware. In
                              order to
                              > > save cost, the manufacturers are omitting parts that are normally
                              > > necessary for the function of the hardware. This, applied to modems,
                              > > results in a thing called a winmodem, which is nothing else than a
                              > > soundcard with a telephone plug in it. All that such a thing has in
                              > > common with a real modem is the dsp (digital signal processor),
                              > > everything else (like A/D D/A converter, controllers) is missing,
                              > > therefore the processor and other computer hardware has to deal with
                              > > encoding the traffic. This is bad for various reasons.
                              > >
                              >
                              > Actually, you have it reversed. Winmodems have A/D and D/A converters
                              > (there's no way to recieve or generate and audio signal without them),
                              > What they ARE missing is the DSP chips...and THAT is why LOSEmodems
                              > have "minimum CPU" requirements, and load down the CPU like a hog...
                              > because the system CPU is doing the DSP and controller work which
                              > should properly be done within the modem hardware.
                              >
                              >
                              > > First of all, the manufacturer will provide Windows driver only as a
                              > > rule. The protocols needed to drive the hardware are proprietary,
                              > > there's no standard, and the manufacturers won't give them to the
                              > > community. So writing a driver for Linux is pretty much a huge task,
                              > > with little gain.
                              > >
                              > > Even with Windows, where a winmodem will work, it's not advisable
                              to use
                              > > one anyway - there's a considerable performance penalty, because modem
                              > > communication is a real-time task, and computers are not designed
                              to do
                              > > such tasks.
                              >
                              > Yep. See above.
                              >
                              > >
                              > > However, only after I wrote this I saw that it was about a xDSL
                              modem -
                              > > they are different than modems, and most of them work with Linux
                              as far
                              > > as I know.
                              >
                              > Modems are modems are modoms.... MODEM = MODulator/DEModulator
                              >
                              > different frequency range, same task.
                              >
                              > >
                              > > Cheers
                              > >

                              Hi,
                              I have my new real modem and it works very well, and I have bought
                              some stuff that is supposed to teach me a bit about linux so that I
                              would not be asking absurd questions, but I am afraid I have to read a
                              lot. I downloaded a trial version of a web browser and when I tried
                              to install it, my pc said that it is a program and for security
                              reasons it will not be installed. Is there a way to fix it?
                              kind regards
                            • Aaron Kulkis
                              ... WHICH web browser? Be specific, man! ... That doesn t sound like Linux.......
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jan 14, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                reborn reincarnated wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...> wrote:
                                >
                                >>Horror Vacui wrote:
                                >>
                                >>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:20:07 +0100
                                >>>Richard wrote:
                                >>>
                                >>>
                                >>>
                                >>>> I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for
                                >>>>
                                >>>> Hi again,
                                >>>>
                                >>>> In my knowlegde a usb-modem uses "virtual" drivers and that is
                                >>>> something linux will not like at all: virtual is NOT REAL so with
                                >>>> "virtual" you must stay in a "virtual" world (like Windows) ;)
                                >>>
                                >>>
                                >>> It's not about virtual drivers, it's about virtual hardware. In order
                                >>> to save cost, the manufacturers are omitting parts that are normally
                                >>> necessary for the function of the hardware. This, applied to modems,
                                >>> results in a thing called a winmodem, which is nothing else than a
                                >>> soundcard with a telephone plug in it. All that such a thing has in
                                >>> common with a real modem is the dsp (digital signal processor),
                                >>> everything else (like A/D D/A converter, controllers) is missing,
                                >>> therefore the processor and other computer hardware has to deal with
                                >>> encoding the traffic. This is bad for various reasons.
                                >>>
                                >>
                                >> Actually, you have it reversed. Winmodems have A/D and D/A converters
                                >> (there's no way to recieve or generate and audio signal without them),
                                >> What they ARE missing is the DSP chips...and THAT is why LOSEmodems
                                >> have "minimum CPU" requirements, and load down the CPU like a hog...
                                >> because the system CPU is doing the DSP and controller work which
                                >> should properly be done within the modem hardware.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>> First of all, the manufacturer will provide Windows driver only as a
                                >>> rule. The protocols needed to drive the hardware are proprietary,
                                >>> there's no standard, and the manufacturers won't give them to the
                                >>> community. So writing a driver for Linux is pretty much a huge task,
                                >>> with little gain.
                                >>>
                                >>> Even with Windows, where a winmodem will work, it's not advisable
                                >>> to use one anyway - there's a considerable performance penalty,
                                >>> because modem communication is a real-time task, and computers
                                >>> are not designed to do such tasks.
                                >>
                                >>Yep. See above.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>>However, only after I wrote this I saw that it was about a xDSL
                                >>> modem - they are different than modems, and most of them work
                                >>> with Linux as far as I know.
                                >>
                                >>Modems are modems are modoms.... MODEM = MODulator/DEModulator
                                >>different frequency range, same task.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>>Cheers
                                >>>
                                >
                                >
                                > Hi,
                                > I have my new real modem and it works very well, and I have bought
                                > some stuff that is supposed to teach me a bit about linux so that I
                                > would not be asking absurd questions, but I am afraid I have to read a
                                > lot. I downloaded a trial version of a web browser and when I tried

                                WHICH web browser? Be specific, man!

                                > to install it, my pc said that it is a program and for security
                                > reasons it will not be installed.

                                That doesn't sound like Linux.......

                                > Is there a way to fix it?
                                > kind regards
                                >
                              • reborn reincarnated
                                hi Aaron, it is firefox 1.01. firefox-1.0.installer.tar.gz/firefox-installer/firefox-installer-bin. today I met another feary occurrence: My suse firewall does
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  hi Aaron,
                                  it is firefox 1.01.
                                  firefox-1.0.installer.tar.gz/firefox-installer/firefox-installer-bin.
                                  today I met another feary occurrence: My suse firewall does not
                                  recognize my new ADSl modem! I am not protected!
                                  kind regards


                                  --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...> wrote:
                                  > reborn reincarnated wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >>Horror Vacui wrote:
                                  > >>
                                  > >>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:20:07 +0100
                                  > >>>Richard wrote:
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>> I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for
                                  > >>>>
                                  > >>>> Hi again,
                                  > >>>>
                                  > >>>> In my knowlegde a usb-modem uses "virtual" drivers and that is
                                  > >>>> something linux will not like at all: virtual is NOT REAL so with
                                  > >>>> "virtual" you must stay in a "virtual" world (like Windows) ;)
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>> It's not about virtual drivers, it's about virtual hardware. In
                                  order
                                  > >>> to save cost, the manufacturers are omitting parts that are normally
                                  > >>> necessary for the function of the hardware. This, applied to modems,
                                  > >>> results in a thing called a winmodem, which is nothing else than a
                                  > >>> soundcard with a telephone plug in it. All that such a thing has in
                                  > >>> common with a real modem is the dsp (digital signal processor),
                                  > >>> everything else (like A/D D/A converter, controllers) is missing,
                                  > >>> therefore the processor and other computer hardware has to deal with
                                  > >>> encoding the traffic. This is bad for various reasons.
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>
                                  > >> Actually, you have it reversed. Winmodems have A/D and D/A
                                  converters
                                  > >> (there's no way to recieve or generate and audio signal without
                                  them),
                                  > >> What they ARE missing is the DSP chips...and THAT is why LOSEmodems
                                  > >> have "minimum CPU" requirements, and load down the CPU like a hog...
                                  > >> because the system CPU is doing the DSP and controller work which
                                  > >> should properly be done within the modem hardware.
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >>> First of all, the manufacturer will provide Windows driver only as a
                                  > >>> rule. The protocols needed to drive the hardware are proprietary,
                                  > >>> there's no standard, and the manufacturers won't give them to the
                                  > >>> community. So writing a driver for Linux is pretty much a huge task,
                                  > >>> with little gain.
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>> Even with Windows, where a winmodem will work, it's not advisable
                                  > >>> to use one anyway - there's a considerable performance penalty,
                                  > >>> because modem communication is a real-time task, and computers
                                  > >>> are not designed to do such tasks.
                                  > >>
                                  > >>Yep. See above.
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >>>However, only after I wrote this I saw that it was about a xDSL
                                  > >>> modem - they are different than modems, and most of them work
                                  > >>> with Linux as far as I know.
                                  > >>
                                  > >>Modems are modems are modoms.... MODEM = MODulator/DEModulator
                                  > >>different frequency range, same task.
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >>>Cheers
                                  > >>>
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Hi,
                                  > > I have my new real modem and it works very well, and I have bought
                                  > > some stuff that is supposed to teach me a bit about linux so that I
                                  > > would not be asking absurd questions, but I am afraid I have to read a
                                  > > lot. I downloaded a trial version of a web browser and when I tried
                                  >
                                  > WHICH web browser? Be specific, man!
                                  >
                                  > > to install it, my pc said that it is a program and for security
                                  > > reasons it will not be installed.
                                  >
                                  > That doesn't sound like Linux.......
                                  >
                                  > > Is there a way to fix it?
                                  > > kind regards
                                  > >
                                • Aaron Kulkis
                                  ... Yesm you are protected. I ve had my SuSE machine sitting directly on a cable modem for 3 years, no firewall. Many breakin ATTEMPTS (it appears about every
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    reborn reincarnated wrote:
                                    >
                                    > hi Aaron,
                                    > it is firefox 1.01.
                                    > firefox-1.0.installer.tar.gz/firefox-installer/firefox-installer-bin.
                                    > today I met another feary occurrence: My suse firewall does not
                                    > recognize my new ADSl modem! I am not protected!

                                    Yesm you are protected. I've had my SuSE machine sitting directly on
                                    a cable modem for 3 years, no firewall.

                                    Many breakin ATTEMPTS (it appears about every 20 minutes or so something
                                    tries to download stuff via anonymous FTP), but NOTHING successful.

                                    Why?

                                    Because Linux and its software isn't full of backdoors like Windows
                                    and MS-written apps like Front Page, etc.

                                    Now as for any Mickeysoft machines...oh well.

                                    > kind regards
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >>reborn reincarnated wrote:
                                    >>
                                    >>>--- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...>
                                    >
                                    > wrote:
                                    >
                                    >>>>Horror Vacui wrote:
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:20:07 +0100
                                    >>>>>Richard wrote:
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>>>I will also be mailing the product company (globespan) for
                                    >>>>>>
                                    >>>>>>Hi again,
                                    >>>>>>
                                    >>>>>>In my knowlegde a usb-modem uses "virtual" drivers and that is
                                    >>>>>>something linux will not like at all: virtual is NOT REAL so with
                                    >>>>>>"virtual" you must stay in a "virtual" world (like Windows) ;)
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>>It's not about virtual drivers, it's about virtual hardware. In
                                    >
                                    > order
                                    >
                                    >>>>>to save cost, the manufacturers are omitting parts that are normally
                                    >>>>>necessary for the function of the hardware. This, applied to modems,
                                    >>>>>results in a thing called a winmodem, which is nothing else than a
                                    >>>>>soundcard with a telephone plug in it. All that such a thing has in
                                    >>>>>common with a real modem is the dsp (digital signal processor),
                                    >>>>>everything else (like A/D D/A converter, controllers) is missing,
                                    >>>>>therefore the processor and other computer hardware has to deal with
                                    >>>>>encoding the traffic. This is bad for various reasons.
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>Actually, you have it reversed. Winmodems have A/D and D/A
                                    >
                                    > converters
                                    >
                                    >>>>(there's no way to recieve or generate and audio signal without
                                    >
                                    > them),
                                    >
                                    >>>>What they ARE missing is the DSP chips...and THAT is why LOSEmodems
                                    >>>>have "minimum CPU" requirements, and load down the CPU like a hog...
                                    >>>>because the system CPU is doing the DSP and controller work which
                                    >>>>should properly be done within the modem hardware.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>>First of all, the manufacturer will provide Windows driver only as a
                                    >>>>>rule. The protocols needed to drive the hardware are proprietary,
                                    >>>>>there's no standard, and the manufacturers won't give them to the
                                    >>>>>community. So writing a driver for Linux is pretty much a huge task,
                                    >>>>>with little gain.
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>>Even with Windows, where a winmodem will work, it's not advisable
                                    >>>>>to use one anyway - there's a considerable performance penalty,
                                    >>
                                    >> >>> because modem communication is a real-time task, and computers
                                    >> >>> are not designed to do such tasks.
                                    >>
                                    >>>>Yep. See above.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>>However, only after I wrote this I saw that it was about a xDSL
                                    >>>>>modem - they are different than modems, and most of them work
                                    >>
                                    >> >>> with Linux as far as I know.
                                    >>
                                    >>>>Modems are modems are modoms.... MODEM = MODulator/DEModulator
                                    >>>>different frequency range, same task.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>>Cheers
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>
                                    >>>
                                    >>>Hi,
                                    >>>I have my new real modem and it works very well, and I have bought
                                    >>>some stuff that is supposed to teach me a bit about linux so that I
                                    >>>would not be asking absurd questions, but I am afraid I have to read a
                                    >>>lot. I downloaded a trial version of a web browser and when I tried
                                    >>
                                    >>WHICH web browser? Be specific, man!
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >>>to install it, my pc said that it is a program and for security
                                    >>>reasons it will not be installed.
                                    >>
                                    >>That doesn't sound like Linux.......
                                    >>
                                    >> > Is there a way to fix it?
                                    >>
                                    >>>kind regards
                                    >>>
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Aaron Kulkis
                                    reborn reincarnated wrote: [top-posted reply corrected] ... Ok, what was the exact message? trying to install a program, and for security resons it will not
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      reborn reincarnated wrote:

                                      [top-posted reply corrected]

                                      >>>I have my new real modem and it works very well, and I have bought
                                      >>>some stuff that is supposed to teach me a bit about linux so that I
                                      >>>would not be asking absurd questions, but I am afraid I have to read a
                                      >>>lot. I downloaded a trial version of a web browser and when I tried
                                      >>
                                      >>WHICH web browser? Be specific, man!
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>>to install it, my pc said that it is a program and for security
                                      >>>reasons it will not be installed.
                                      >>
                                      >>That doesn't sound like Linux.......
                                      >>
                                      >> > Is there a way to fix it?
                                      >>
                                      >>>kind regards
                                      >>>

                                      > hi Aaron,
                                      > it is firefox 1.01.
                                      > firefox-1.0.installer.tar.gz/firefox-installer/firefox-installer-bin.

                                      Ok, what was the exact message?

                                      "trying to install a program, and for security resons it will not be
                                      be installed" is an error message unlike anything I've ever seen on
                                      ANY form of Unix.

                                      > today I met another feary occurrence: My suse firewall does not
                                      > recognize my new ADSl modem! I am not protected!
                                      > kind regards
                                      >

                                      Don't sweat it... SuSE linux is secure
                                    • reborn reincarnated
                                      ... Well, I was in panic, thank you. lol. I have nothing secret on my Pc, but we ,average home users, fear that someone is gonna come and steal our credit car
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > Don't sweat it... SuSE linux is secure
                                        Well, I was in panic, thank you. lol. I have nothing secret on my Pc,
                                        but we ,average home users, fear that someone is gonna come and steal
                                        our credit car number or etc by black magic through our firendly
                                        looking but enemy-within private computers.
                                        As far as I can see, I can see it says that "this program is an
                                        executable program. therefore for security reasons it will be shut
                                        down". It is probably because of my own arrangements for security, I
                                        had downloaded Bitmap antivirus for linux, but I am not sure, whether
                                        it is related with the problem currently I am facing. Btw, I would
                                        very much appreciate İf you would comment whether I should keep on
                                        using Bitmap or I should delete.
                                        kind regards
                                      • reborn reincarnated
                                        correction, it is bit-defender. I am terribly sorry.
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          correction, it is bit-defender. I am terribly sorry.

                                          --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, "reborn reincarnated"
                                          <unfurled_by_dawn@y...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > Don't sweat it... SuSE linux is secure
                                          > Well, I was in panic, thank you. lol. I have nothing secret on my Pc,
                                          > but we ,average home users, fear that someone is gonna come and steal
                                          > our credit car number or etc by black magic through our firendly
                                          > looking but enemy-within private computers.
                                          > As far as I can see, I can see it says that "this program is an
                                          > executable program. therefore for security reasons it will be shut
                                          > down". It is probably because of my own arrangements for security, I
                                          > had downloaded Bitmap antivirus for linux, but I am not sure, whether
                                          > it is related with the problem currently I am facing. Btw, I would
                                          > very much appreciate İf you would comment whether I should keep on
                                          > using Bitmap or I should delete.
                                          > kind regards
                                        • Aaron Kulkis
                                          ... That s because too the mainstream media, Home computer = Windows... the problem isn t home computers... the problem is WINDOWS AND ITS CULTURE OF SELLING
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            reborn reincarnated wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >>Don't sweat it... SuSE linux is secure
                                            >
                                            > Well, I was in panic, thank you. lol. I have nothing secret on my Pc,
                                            > but we ,average home users, fear that someone is gonna come and steal
                                            > our credit car number or etc by black magic through our firendly
                                            > looking but enemy-within private computers.

                                            That's because too the mainstream media, Home computer = Windows...

                                            the problem isn't home computers... the problem is WINDOWS AND ITS
                                            CULTURE OF SELLING SOFTWARE WITH FEW OR NO BEHAVIOR STANDARDS.

                                            Microsoft bred a new culture of lousy software
                                            * crashes are not just ok, but were accepted as routine -- daily,
                                            even hourly occurances.

                                            * security robustness view similar to basic code robustness as
                                            alluded to above.

                                            These problems are RARE on non-Microsoft platforms.

                                            EXCEEDINGLY rare.

                                            Most credit card numbers, etc., are obtained not through viruses,
                                            or poor system security, but through poor BEHAVIOR of the people
                                            in control of that information.


                                            > As far as I can see, I can see it says that "this program is an
                                            > executable program. therefore for security reasons it will be shut
                                            > down".

                                            Still doesn't make sense. ALL PROGRAMS ARE EXECUTABLE, and in
                                            fact, there is no such thing as an executable which is not a program.

                                            So, whoever wrote the code that produced that statement ....well,
                                            let's just say, the triply-redundant use of English indicates that
                                            whoever wrote this the brightest light on the tree, if you get
                                            my drift.


                                            > It is probably because of my own arrangements for security, I
                                            > had downloaded Bitmap antivirus for linux, but I am not sure, whether

                                            Never heard of it....


                                            > it is related with the problem currently I am facing. Btw, I would
                                            > very much appreciate İf you would comment whether I should keep on
                                            > using Bitmap or I should delete.

                                            From the behavior you're describing, it would be more accurately named
                                            if the initial "B" were replaced by "Sh"

                                            I'll look up "Bitmap" software and see what I can find out.
                                            What the name of the company which publishes this idiocy?


                                            > kind regards
                                            >
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.