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

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

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Kulkis
    ... ^^^^^^^^^^^ You gave TWO Computers the same IP address, and you re wondering why they aren t communicating properly????
    Message 1 of 21 , Dec 7, 2004
      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 2 of 21 , Dec 7, 2004
        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 3 of 21 , Dec 9, 2004
          -----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 4 of 21 , Dec 9, 2004
            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 5 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
              --- 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 6 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                > 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 7 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                  --- 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 8 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                    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 9 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                      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 10 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                        --- 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 11 of 21 , Jan 1, 2005
                          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 12 of 21 , Jan 14, 2005
                            --- 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 13 of 21 , Jan 14, 2005
                              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 14 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                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 15 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                  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 16 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                    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 17 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                      > 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 18 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                        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 19 of 21 , Jan 15, 2005
                                          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.