Re: OT - Linux Questions



 Religions > Atheism > Re: OT - Linux Questions

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 3

1

 

2

 

3

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Date: 31 Mar 2004 07:24:18 PM
Object: Re: OT - Linux Questions
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:11:26 +0000 in episode
<3hcl6051jlco1nefuopca2ng1i496f59v3@4ax.com> we saw our hero Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net>:

I chose Redhat 9, since it's free...

They all are.
I've been refusing to buy a boxed set of Mandrake since 8.2 because they
keep pissing me off shoving releases out the door too fast and getting
sloppy. But I'm on 9.2 now and getting ready to move to 10. Haven't spent
a dime. <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.

User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 01 Apr 2004 01:12:51 PM
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

I chose Redhat 9, since it's free...

They all are.

Not all are. I ran across a "Peanut Linux" the other day that I
couldn't find a free download for. It was like a mini-Linux
configuration of some kind, but you had to send for the CD's which
cost $30, which isn't all that bad a price, really, if it works like
it says and will have support behind it.

I've been refusing to buy a boxed set of Mandrake since 8.2 because they
keep pissing me off shoving releases out the door too fast and getting
sloppy. But I'm on 9.2 now and getting ready to move to 10. Haven't spent
a dime. <g>

I actually bought the first set of Redhat 9 disks from someone on Ebay
for $8.00 including shipping. I didn't wanna mess with downloading
the files from the internet and creating my own CD's. When those
failed, I ended up downloading the ISO's from the internet, creating
my own CD's, at both 4X and 2X speeds, and tried again, with no
success as far as the Perl and Openoffice packages. Kinda weird.. I
ran all the checksum programs on the CD's and got no errors at all.
I don't really care about Perl or Openoffice anyway, so I don't think
I'm gonna worry about them. I'm more concerned with being able to
network into the internet from the Linux box.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 01 Apr 2004 01:22:45 PM
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:12:51 +0000 in episode
<irpo60lfg3q8qalm4jrraohfudjfj17ue2@4ax.com> we saw our hero Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:


I chose Redhat 9, since it's free...


They all are.


Not all are. I ran across a "Peanut Linux" the other day that I couldn't
find a free download for. It was like a mini-Linux configuration of some
kind, but you had to send for the CD's which cost $30, which isn't all
that bad a price, really, if it works like it says and will have support
behind it.

Really? Never heard of it. But here's the download:
http://www.ibiblio.org/peanut/download.htm
And you find pretty much everybody at that site. The index page is:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/

I've been refusing to buy a boxed set of Mandrake since 8.2 because they
keep pissing me off shoving releases out the door too fast and getting
sloppy. But I'm on 9.2 now and getting ready to move to 10. Haven't
spent a dime. <g>


I actually bought the first set of Redhat 9 disks from someone on Ebay for
$8.00 including shipping. I didn't wanna mess with downloading the files
from the internet and creating my own CD's. When those failed, I ended
up downloading the ISO's from the internet, creating my own CD's, at both
4X and 2X speeds, and tried again, with no success as far as the Perl and
Openoffice packages. Kinda weird.. I ran all the checksum programs on
the CD's and got no errors at all.

I don't really care about Perl or Openoffice anyway, so I don't think I'm
gonna worry about them. I'm more concerned with being able to network
into the internet from the Linux box.

--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 01 Apr 2004 03:17:58 PM
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

I chose Redhat 9, since it's free...

They all are.

Not all are. I ran across a "Peanut Linux" the other day that I couldn't
find a free download for. It was like a mini-Linux configuration of some
kind, but you had to send for the CD's which cost $30, which isn't all
that bad a price, really, if it works like it says and will have support
behind it.

Really? Never heard of it. But here's the download:
http://www.ibiblio.org/peanut/download.htm

You think I should try it? I don't have much to lose, aside from the
time I've spent getting Redhat to load and boot.
I gotta admit to loving all the various references to nuts in all the
Unix buzzwords, don't you? Peanut Linux... PopKorn shell...
Kernel... When is somebody gonna write a pistachio shell, that's
what I wanna know...

And you find pretty much everybody at that site. The index page is:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/

Peanut linux:
"Full Linux GUI distribution, that ships 99.9% software pre-configured
with KDE-Desktop/WM, Netscape, HTTP/FTP/Telnet daemons, 5 X Games,
KLicq Client, Igloo-Client, TKDesk, Packages include
Quake3-Test(requires 3Dfx Video Card) Perl5 5.6.0, GVim 2.6, PCMCIA,
PPP, ISDN, Cable modem support."
I wonder if the version of Quake3 would recognize my older Voodoo II
video card?
"Type 'mc' in a Xterminal within Enlightenment or KDE which starts the
(Midnight Commander). Now go highlight the package you wan't to
install press the [F2] key, chose from the [F2] menu, Install
Peanut*.rpm, .rpm, .deb, tar.bz2, .tgz, etc, press [Enter]."
Hmm...
Sounds like you might have to already be running some flavor of
Unix and X-windows in order to use it?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 01 Apr 2004 03:43:44 PM
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:17:58 +0000 in episode
<211p60pgr1den65bar0nt9grun19etaa1a@4ax.com> we saw our hero Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:


I chose Redhat 9, since it's free...


They all are.


Not all are. I ran across a "Peanut Linux" the other day that I
couldn't find a free download for. It was like a mini-Linux
configuration of some kind, but you had to send for the CD's which cost
$30, which isn't all that bad a price, really, if it works like it says
and will have support behind it.


Really? Never heard of it. But here's the download:


http://www.ibiblio.org/peanut/download.htm


You think I should try it? I don't have much to lose, aside from the time
I've spent getting Redhat to load and boot.

Dunno. As I said, I've never heard of it before now. Then there are a *lot
of distros out there I've probably never heard of. <g>
I wouldn't personally put RedHat in my list of distros I think are worth
trying. They've been weird for some time now and I've known too many
people who've had trouble with them. They've pretty much given up on the
desktop end of things anyway. I believe 9 is the last one (they've turned
it over to the community under the Fedora project).
I find Mandrake to be the most "user friendly" of the bunch. Despite their
flaws and idiosyncrasies, I've had more success in handing computer
literate but new to Linux types some disks and having them come back
saying it was pretty easy to get running.

I gotta admit to loving all the various references to nuts in all the Unix
buzzwords, don't you? Peanut Linux... PopKorn shell... Kernel... When is
somebody gonna write a pistachio shell, that's what I wanna know...

And you find pretty much everybody at that site. The index page is:


http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/


Peanut linux:
"Full Linux GUI distribution, that ships 99.9% software pre-configured
with KDE-Desktop/WM, Netscape, HTTP/FTP/Telnet daemons, 5 X Games, KLicq
Client, Igloo-Client, TKDesk, Packages include Quake3-Test(requires 3Dfx
Video Card) Perl5 5.6.0, GVim 2.6, PCMCIA, PPP, ISDN, Cable modem
support."

I wonder if the version of Quake3 would recognize my older Voodoo II video
card?

Dunno. Never got into games. Can't say I'm all that impressed with some of
the other stuff they're listing. Netscape? Nah. Moz is better. Netscape is
AOL weighing Moz down with crap (and I believe they're dumping Netscape
and are back in bed with Gates). KDE is okay, lots of people like it, I
find it annoying. They seem to be doing a stripped down distro so you may
not be given a choice of desktops.

"Type 'mc' in a Xterminal within Enlightenment or KDE which starts the
(Midnight Commander). Now go highlight the package you wan't to install
press the [F2] key, chose from the [F2] menu, Install Peanut*.rpm, .rpm,
.deb, tar.bz2, .tgz, etc, press [Enter]."

Hmm...

Sounds like you might have to already be running some flavor of Unix and
X-windows in order to use it?

Well, 'mc' itself is text mode but Enlightenment and KDE run on X. But,
yeah, if you're running E or KDE, you're on Linux and X is running...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
User: "SMChristenson"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 01 Apr 2004 06:45:18 PM
If you just want to play around with linux, I highly recommend Knoppix
(knopper.net). An entire desktop distribution in one compressed CD ISO.
Boots from the CD -- which is obviously a slow boot and slow program
loads, but it has excellent hardware recognition and decent scripts for
setting up the sound and internet connection. You could save your
configuration on a USB memory stick if you liked and carry your "computer"
around on a CD and a keychain.
Has an easy uncompressed install to hard disk too.
That means you are running Debian linux. You either love it or hate it.
I've had a PostgreSQL DB server running Debian for some months now and I'm
still not sure where I stand on that. But I know Knoppix is one cool CD.
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 01 Apr 2004 08:26:27 PM
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:45:18 -0600 in episode
<pan.2004.04.02.00.45.18.469223@visi.com> we saw our hero SMChristenson
<smchris@visi.com>:


If you just want to play around with linux, I highly recommend Knoppix
(knopper.net). An entire desktop distribution in one compressed CD ISO.
Boots from the CD -- which is obviously a slow boot and slow program
loads, but it has excellent hardware recognition and decent scripts for
setting up the sound and internet connection. You could save your
configuration on a USB memory stick if you liked and carry your "computer"
around on a CD and a keychain.

Has an easy uncompressed install to hard disk too.

That means you are running Debian linux. You either love it or hate it.
I've had a PostgreSQL DB server running Debian for some months now and I'm
still not sure where I stand on that. But I know Knoppix is one cool CD.

I hear a lot of good things about Debian but I've rather settled on Drake.
Kept toying with Gentoo but never made the jump. Drake does what I need
and I've gotten used to it. <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.

User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 02 Apr 2004 07:46:39 AM
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in alt.atheism

If you just want to play around with linux, I highly recommend Knoppix
(knopper.net). An entire desktop distribution in one compressed CD ISO.
Boots from the CD -- which is obviously a slow boot and slow program
loads, but it has excellent hardware recognition and decent scripts for
setting up the sound and internet connection. You could save your
configuration on a USB memory stick if you liked and carry your "computer"
around on a CD and a keychain.

Now that's a cool idea...

Has an easy uncompressed install to hard disk too.
That means you are running Debian linux. You either love it or hate it.
I've had a PostgreSQL DB server running Debian for some months now
and I'm still not sure where I stand on that. But I know Knoppix is one
cool CD.

What kinds of C/C++/Xwindows development software does it
come with? That's one of the main things I'll be using my Linux box
for.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "SMChristenson"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 18 Apr 2004 09:37:32 AM
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:46:39 +0000, Elroy Willis wrote:

What kinds of C/C++/Xwindows development software does it come with?
That's one of the main things I'll be using my Linux box for.

Favors KDE. Default install is a bunch of gcc: gcc 3.3.2.3-1, gcc-2.95,
g++, g++-3.2, gcc.3.2 and base, gcc.3.3. A few things like KDevelop and
tkwish.
But if you try the CD, decide you like it and do a hard drive install, you
just have a flavor of Debian. Anything Debian has is available via
apt-get.
A lot of people are interested in Knoppix as a free GNU base install for
their software because the hardware recognition is so good and the
transfer to hard drive is so relatively easy. Myself, I would like to make
a custom Knoppix/Postgresql server install disk with unixODBC. (Similar
to what Oracle is doing with Red Hat.)
.



User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 02 Apr 2004 09:09:40 AM
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

Quit calling me a hero, dammit! I hate that... I know I'm pretty
cool and all that, but a hero? Hmm...

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

I chose Redhat 9, since it's free...

They all are.

Not all are. I ran across a "Peanut Linux" the other day that I
couldn't find a free download for. It was like a mini-Linux
configuration of some kind, but you had to send for the CD's which
cost $30, which isn't all that bad a price, really, if it works like it says
and will have support behind it.

Really? Never heard of it. But here's the download:
http://www.ibiblio.org/peanut/download.htm

You think I should try it? I don't have much to lose, aside from the
time I've spent getting Redhat to load and boot.

Dunno. As I said, I've never heard of it before now. Then there are a
*lot of distros out there I've probably never heard of. <g>

I'm having a hard time deciding which ones to try. I've got all the
ISO download and CD burning process figured out, so I can try as
many as I like. Redhat is the first and only I've tried so far, and
as I've said, I had several problems getting it to work, so I'm not
all that set on keeping it. I'm leaning towards trying ones that I
can download as a bootable CD to simply things.
Back when I first loaded Unix onto an original 8086 PC in the
middle 80's, everything that was needed to get the hard drive
formatted and a bootable kernel running from it was all contained
on a single 360K floppy. No kidding. After loading that first
floppy, you could boot from the hard drive and have a basic
Unix system up and running.
After that, there was some command that you'd type in to start
installing all the other software from additional floppies, but the
base Unix system, kernel and all, fit onto a single 360K floppy.
I guess maybe it could be referred to as a "mustard seed"
distribution, if such a thing existed today.

I wouldn't personally put RedHat in my list of distros I think are worth
trying. They've been weird for some time now and I've known too many
people who've had trouble with them. They've pretty much given up on the
desktop end of things anyway. I believe 9 is the last one (they've turned
it over to the community under the Fedora project).

I'm leaning towards ditching it, even though I spent some time tarring
off some old C programs from floppies. Those floppies will still be
there when I try the next flavor, so it's no biggie...

I find Mandrake to be the most "user friendly" of the bunch. Despite their
flaws and idiosyncrasies, I've had more success in handing computer
literate but new to Linux types some disks and having them come back
saying it was pretty easy to get running.

Maybe I'll give Mandrake a try... I've heard both good and bad things
about it. I just got video capture working on this Windows PC and am
spending more time with it than I am with fiddling around with Linux.
I do wonder if a simple 4-port ethernet hub is all I need to connect
my two machines, though. I priced them earlier and found some
for $20. One of those and couple ethernet cables is all it seems I'll
need if I decide to use the NAT option.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 02 Apr 2004 01:54:04 PM
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:09:40 +0000 in episode
<ssuq60dukdch862g85tioogtl6evsc2prr@4ax.com> we saw our hero Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net>:

I do wonder if a simple 4-port ethernet hub is all I need to connect my
two machines, though. I priced them earlier and found some for $20. One
of those and couple ethernet cables is all it seems I'll need if I decide
to use the NAT option.

Hubs don't do NAT. Nor much anything more than whatever signal they see on
one port gets sent to all the other ports.
They do have boxes that have firewalls *and act as a hub. But last I saw,
they were more expensive than a plain hub...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 02 Apr 2004 02:23:11 PM
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

I do wonder if a simple 4-port ethernet hub is all I need to connect my
two machines, though. I priced them earlier and found some for $20.
One of those and couple ethernet cables is all it seems I'll need if I
decide to use the NAT option.

Hubs don't do NAT.

Are you 100% sure about that?

Nor much anything more than whatever signal they
see on one port gets sent to all the other ports.

So they could just transparently pass on NAT requests,
like any other request. Why might it block them? Can't think of any
reason off hand...

They do have boxes that have firewalls *and act as a hub. But
last I saw, they were more expensive than a plain hub...

I'm willing to take a $20 chance and give it a shot. Cheaper
than a movie and popcorn and a soft drink, and something to
fiddle with to keep myself interested in one thing or another...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 02 Apr 2004 03:58:41 PM
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:23:11 +0000 in episode
<aiir60hh4rrma33gdv0slalgcsue9c5ngg@4ax.com> we saw our hero Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:


I do wonder if a simple 4-port ethernet hub is all I need to connect my
two machines, though. I priced them earlier and found some for $20.
One of those and couple ethernet cables is all it seems I'll need if I
decide to use the NAT option.


Hubs don't do NAT.


Are you 100% sure about that?

Nor much anything more than whatever signal they see on one port gets
sent to all the other ports.


So they could just transparently pass on NAT requests, like any other
request. Why might it block them? Can't think of any reason off hand...

They do have boxes that have firewalls *and act as a hub. But last I
saw, they were more expensive than a plain hub...


I'm willing to take a $20 chance and give it a shot. Cheaper than a movie
and popcorn and a soft drink, and something to fiddle with to keep myself
interested in one thing or another...

But NAT requests made of *whom exactly?
Maybe I'm missing something here. Somebody has to be doing the translation
of the addresses. Hubs just pass signals. Who's doing the NAT?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 03 Apr 2004 04:32:56 AM
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

I do wonder if a simple 4-port ethernet hub is all I need to connect my
two machines, though. I priced them earlier and found some for $20.
One of those and couple ethernet cables is all it seems I'll need if I
decide to use the NAT option.

Hubs don't do NAT.

Are you 100% sure about that?

Nor much anything more than whatever signal they see on one port gets
sent to all the other ports.

So they could just transparently pass on NAT requests, like any other
request. Why might it block them? Can't think of any reason off hand...

They do have boxes that have firewalls *and act as a hub. But last I
saw, they were more expensive than a plain hub...

I'm willing to take a $20 chance and give it a shot. Cheaper than a movie
and popcorn and a soft drink, and something to fiddle with to keep myself
interested in one thing or another...

But NAT requests made of *whom exactly?
Maybe I'm missing something here. Somebody has to be doing the translation
of the addresses. Hubs just pass signals. Who's doing the NAT?

The software that sends the messages out to the network, out
through the hub, from what I can tell. All the devices on the network
look for packets which have their "name" on them and discard any
which don't have their "name" or IP address on them, or something
like that.
I'm certainly no expert, but from my experiences with ethernet hubs,
they take care of all the requests transparently, somehow... I don't
think NAT would be any different than TCP or some other protocol
as far as the ethernet hub is concerned, but I could be wrong.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "wbarwell"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 02 Apr 2004 11:53:25 PM
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:23:11 +0000 in episode
<aiir60hh4rrma33gdv0slalgcsue9c5ngg@4ax.com> we saw our hero Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:


I do wonder if a simple 4-port ethernet hub is all I need to connect my
two machines, though. I priced them earlier and found some for $20.
One of those and couple ethernet cables is all it seems I'll need if I
decide to use the NAT option.


Hubs don't do NAT.


Are you 100% sure about that?

Nor much anything more than whatever signal they see on one port gets
sent to all the other ports.


So they could just transparently pass on NAT requests, like any other
request. Why might it block them? Can't think of any reason off hand...

They do have boxes that have firewalls *and act as a hub. But last I
saw, they were more expensive than a plain hub...


I'm willing to take a $20 chance and give it a shot. Cheaper than a
movie and popcorn and a soft drink, and something to fiddle with to keep
myself interested in one thing or another...


But NAT requests made of *whom exactly?

Maybe I'm missing something here. Somebody has to be doing the translation
of the addresses. Hubs just pass signals. Who's doing the NAT?

The firewall.
It takes a signal. It re-addresses that signal.
It sends it to the hub. The signal is broadcast and the
NIC card to whom these packets are meant for reads the
headers and says: "These packets are for me".
It grabs them and passes them on to be read.
A NAT server also does the opposite. It takes all packets
going out and makes them look, to anybody outside the
system, like all packets originate from the firewall machine.
NAT is done inside the Linux IPtables software.
Google: IPtables, NAT, masquerade, HOWTO for more technical information.


--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 03 Apr 2004 02:56:24 AM
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism

we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:

I do wonder if a simple 4-port ethernet hub is all I need to connect my
two machines, though. I priced them earlier and found some for $20.
One of those and couple ethernet cables is all it seems I'll need if I
decide to use the NAT option.

Hubs don't do NAT.

Are you 100% sure about that?

Nor much anything more than whatever signal they see on one port gets
sent to all the other ports.

So they could just transparently pass on NAT requests, like any other
request. Why might it block them? Can't think of any reason off hand...

They do have boxes that have firewalls *and act as a hub. But last I
saw, they were more expensive than a plain hub...

I'm willing to take a $20 chance and give it a shot. Cheaper than a
movie and popcorn and a soft drink, and something to fiddle with to keep
myself interested in one thing or another...

But NAT requests made of *whom exactly?
Maybe I'm missing something here. Somebody has to be doing the translation
of the addresses. Hubs just pass signals. Who's doing the NAT?

The firewall.

I'm not even sure if a firewall is necessary. I hooked up a network
with 20 or so Windows boxes and several AIX/Unix boxes a few years
ago, and there was no firewall and no router. Just a few ethernet
hubs stacked together. We weren't connected to the internet at
that time, so a firewall wasn't a concern.

It takes a signal. It re-addresses that signal.
It sends it to the hub. The signal is broadcast and the
NIC card to whom these packets are meant for reads the
headers and says: "These packets are for me".
It grabs them and passes them on to be read.
A NAT server also does the opposite. It takes all packets
going out and makes them look, to anybody outside the
system, like all packets originate from the firewall machine.
NAT is done inside the Linux IPtables software.

Do you agree or think that all I need is a simple ethernet hub to
get internet access from the Linux box? If the NAT32 software
works as advertised, then I think it should work okay. A four port
hub will allow for some expansion into a computer in another
bedroom or maybe for a printer or some other ethernet
capable device in the house.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "spakka"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 03 Apr 2004 07:15:45 AM
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:56:24 +0000, Elroy Willis wrote:

Do you agree or think that all I need is a simple ethernet hub to
get internet access from the Linux box? If the NAT32 software
works as advertised, then I think it should work okay. A four port
hub will allow for some expansion into a computer in another
bedroom or maybe for a printer or some other ethernet
capable device in the house.

Sorry that I've joined this thread rather late.
I have heard people say that they have connected several computers
through a hub to their DSL or cable modem. This is supposed to work
OK for any one computer at a time to access the Internet. But the
entities connected to the hub are't on a network - there's only one
IP address. You couldn't talk to a printer like that, or have two
computers accessing the Internet simultaneously.
You're talking about doing more than that, i.e. having a real
network connected through the hub, with different IP addresses
for the nodes.
You should recognise that whatever node on your network is doing
the NAT, be it a hardware router or one of your boxes, will need to
have two network interfaces. Your ISP will assign you a real IP
address exposed to the Internet. Your private network will have
a different set of addresses not meaningful outside your network.
The entity with the two interfaces will be the router, forwarding
packets between the networks and doing the address translation.
I guess you're proposing to have the Win98 box take this role.
The USB DSL modem is one network inteface, the Ethernet card another.
I don't know if Win98 can forward packets like this.
It would be nice if you could get the DSL modem working with Linux.
Linux will act as a router, possibly out of the box if I remember
Red Hat correctly, and give you a proper firewall.
One last thing - I have to go & watch Scooby Doo 2 now with some
kids - I don't think you need a hub to connect two computers.
A _crossover_ RJ45 cable between the Ethernet ports should suffice.
Good luck.
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 03 Apr 2004 10:48:20 AM
spakka <usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

One last thing - I have to go & watch Scooby Doo 2 now with some
kids - I don't think you need a hub to connect two computers.
A _crossover_ RJ45 cable between the Ethernet ports should suffice.

I wondered if that might work, but have never tried it. You've tried
it and gotten it to work successfully?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "spakka"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 03 Apr 2004 01:06:59 PM
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:48:20 +0000, Elroy Willis wrote:

spakka <usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

One last thing - I have to go & watch Scooby Doo 2 now with some
kids - I don't think you need a hub to connect two computers.
A _crossover_ RJ45 cable between the Ethernet ports should suffice.


I wondered if that might work, but have never tried it. You've tried
it and gotten it to work successfully?

No, but it's supposed to work. I've just been looking around for
a crossover cable to to try it out on the Windows & Linux boxes I've got
sitting next to each other. I'm pretty curious myself. I've found five
cables, but none crossover. I know I have two somewhere...
Hmm. If noboby's responded by Monday, I could borrow one from work &
test it out.
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 03 Apr 2004 01:50:03 PM
spakka <usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:48:20 +0000, Elroy Willis wrote:

spakka <usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

One last thing - I have to go & watch Scooby Doo 2 now with some
kids - I don't think you need a hub to connect two computers.
A _crossover_ RJ45 cable between the Ethernet ports should suffice.

I wondered if that might work, but have never tried it. You've tried
it and gotten it to work successfully?

No, but it's supposed to work. I've just been looking around for
a crossover cable to to try it out on the Windows & Linux boxes I've got
sitting next to each other. I'm pretty curious myself. I've found five
cables, but none crossover. I know I have two somewhere...
Hmm. If noboby's responded by Monday, I could borrow one from
work & test it out.

Let me know if it works. I have no RJ45 cables here at all, and will
have to buy a pretty long one to run to the back bedroom from my
computer room. I don't really mind spending $20 for a hub, but if a
single correctly-wired cable will do the job, then I might go that
route.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "spakka"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 05 Apr 2004 03:14:09 PM
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:50:03 +0000, Elroy Willis wrote:
Hi Elroy
You still reading this thread?

Let me know if it works.

OK. Just tried it out. Transferred files between two computers with
just a crossover cable between the ethernet ports. If you do this, check
that the ends of the cable look different - the orange and green pairs
should be transposed.

I have no RJ45 cables here at all, and will
have to buy a pretty long one to run to the back bedroom from my
computer room. I don't really mind spending $20 for a hub, but if a
single correctly-wired cable will do the job, then I might go that
route.

If you get a hub, you'll need two cables! 'Straight through' ones,
where the ends are identically coloured.
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 05 Apr 2004 04:24:31 PM
spakka <usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:
Hi Elroy
You still reading this thread?

Yep.

Let me know if it works.

OK. Just tried it out. Transferred files between two computers with
just a crossover cable between the ethernet ports. If you do this, check
that the ends of the cable look different - the orange and green pairs
should be transposed.

Just swap those two on one end and that's it?

I have no RJ45 cables here at all, and will
have to buy a pretty long one to run to the back bedroom from my
computer room. I don't really mind spending $20 for a hub, but if a
single correctly-wired cable will do the job, then I might go that
route.

If you get a hub, you'll need two cables! 'Straight through' ones,
where the ends are identically coloured.

Okay, I'm gonna take your word for it that you've got it working
and give it a shot with just the one cable as you described up
above. If it doesn't work, I'll have to rewire the one end and
then buy a hub and another short cable.
BTW, it seems that the trouble I had earlier with loading Perl and
Openoffice is because of disk space. For some reason, my whole
drive isn't being recognized. It's a brand new Maxtor Ultra ATA/133
40GB drive, but I think only 2GB is being recognized for some reason.
I tried to load an ISO of Debian Linux, and it got an out of space
error as well. It came with a bad sector scan utility that I ran, and
nothing abnormal came up, but at around 2GB into the load, it ran
out of space.
I'm not sure if I formatted the disk properly when I first got it,
or if maybe my BIOS is too old to recognize the whole drive or
what. Hmm...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "spakka"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 05 Apr 2004 05:14:52 PM
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:24:31 +0000, Elroy Willis wrote:

spakka <usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Hi Elroy


You still reading this thread?


Yep.

Let me know if it works.


OK. Just tried it out. Transferred files between two computers with
just a crossover cable between the ethernet ports. If you do this, check
that the ends of the cable look different - the orange and green pairs
should be transposed.


Just swap those two on one end and that's it?

No. Ask for 'crossover'. I mention the above just as a check that the
store has given you the right one. The cables come in two flavours. The
more usual 'straight through' kind won't work for this purpose. There
typically aren't any markings on the outer sheath to tell you which kind
you have. You need to look closely at the connectors, which are
transparent plastic. It will be obvious what I mean when you see one.
You probably don't want to make a crossover cable yourself, although I'm
told it's possible. Looks fiddly if you ask me.

I have no RJ45 cables here at all, and will
have to buy a pretty long one to run to the back bedroom from my
computer room. I don't really mind spending $20 for a hub, but if a
single correctly-wired cable will do the job, then I might go that
route.


If you get a hub, you'll need two cables! 'Straight through' ones,
where the ends are identically coloured.


Okay, I'm gonna take your word for it that you've got it working
and give it a shot with just the one cable as you described up
above. If it doesn't work, I'll have to rewire the one end and
then buy a hub and another short cable.

Again you probably don't want to rewire the end yourself. You can
turn your crossover cable into a normal one by extending it with
another short crossover and an RJ45 connnector. But really, if the
crossover cable doesn't work, a hub isn't going to fix it.
Test it in the first instance by assigning fixed IP addresses to
your network cards on the two computers & pinging between them. There's
very little that can go wrong with this setup.

BTW, it seems that the trouble I had earlier with loading Perl and
Openoffice is because of disk space. For some reason, my whole
drive isn't being recognized. It's a brand new Maxtor Ultra ATA/133
40GB drive, but I think only 2GB is being recognized for some reason.

I tried to load an ISO of Debian Linux, and it got an out of space
error as well. It came with a bad sector scan utility that I ran, and
nothing abnormal came up, but at around 2GB into the load, it ran
out of space.

I'm not sure if I formatted the disk properly when I first got it,
or if maybe my BIOS is too old to recognize the whole drive or
what. Hmm...

Have you checked the BIOS setup during the boot? Usually the hard disk
auto-detect feature will choose a suitable disk geometry.
Does your installation at least boot? Or can you get a root shell from
a boot disk or bootable CD? What does running fdisk tell you?
.

User: "stoney"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 06 Apr 2004 09:27:27 AM
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:24:31 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>,
Message ID: <2ei37019mhidpki9hqr1n75h6blftq65u1@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;

spakka <usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:


Hi Elroy


You still reading this thread?


Yep.

Let me know if it works.


OK. Just tried it out. Transferred files between two computers with
just a crossover cable between the ethernet ports. If you do this, check
that the ends of the cable look different - the orange and green pairs
should be transposed.


Just swap those two on one end and that's it?

I have no RJ45 cables here at all, and will
have to buy a pretty long one to run to the back bedroom from my
computer room. I don't really mind spending $20 for a hub, but if a
single correctly-wired cable will do the job, then I might go that
route.


If you get a hub, you'll need two cables! 'Straight through' ones,
where the ends are identically coloured.


Okay, I'm gonna take your word for it that you've got it working
and give it a shot with just the one cable as you described up
above. If it doesn't work, I'll have to rewire the one end and
then buy a hub and another short cable.

BTW, it seems that the trouble I had earlier with loading Perl and
Openoffice is because of disk space. For some reason, my whole
drive isn't being recognized. It's a brand new Maxtor Ultra ATA/133
40GB drive, but I think only 2GB is being recognized for some reason.

I tried to load an ISO of Debian Linux, and it got an out of space
error as well. It came with a bad sector scan utility that I ran, and
nothing abnormal came up, but at around 2GB into the load, it ran
out of space.

I'm not sure if I formatted the disk properly when I first got it,
or if maybe my BIOS is too old to recognize the whole drive or
what. Hmm...

Elroy, what's the motherboard and chipset? And what BIOS?


Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 06 Apr 2004 08:44:17 PM
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism;

<snip>

BTW, it seems that the trouble I had earlier with loading Perl and
Openoffice is because of disk space. For some reason, my whole
drive isn't being recognized. It's a brand new Maxtor Ultra ATA/133
40GB drive, but I think only 2GB is being recognized for some reason.
I tried to load an ISO of Debian Linux, and it got an out of space
error as well. It came with a bad sector scan utility that I ran, and
nothing abnormal came up, but at around 2GB into the load, it ran
out of space.
I'm not sure if I formatted the disk properly when I first got it,
or if maybe my BIOS is too old to recognize the whole drive or
what. Hmm...

Elroy, what's the motherboard and chipset? And what BIOS?

It's a Pentium II 300mhz with a Phoenix BIOS. I tried to find a BIOS
version but couldn't. While looking around in the BIOS setup utility,
I found a setting for "Large drive OS type" which I could change
between "DOS" and "Other", and it even had Unix listed under "Other,"
so I thought to myself "Yay, this is gonna fix the problem."
<sigh> <grumble> <force-five teeth gnashing> No such luck...
Anyway, not being one to give up on something like this, I decided
to stick the new hard drive in my current Windows computer as the
primary drive and trying to load Redhat on it. I unhooked my old
Windows drive so I didn't have to worry about overwriting it.
Same story as with the other computer... I was trying to eliminate
the CD drive as the culprit, and my Windows computer has a pretty
new CD drive, but it's the same frickin' story during the install. I
think this also eliminates a possible memory problem as well, since
I don't have any memory problems on my Windows PC.
I'm stumped at this point, seriously. My next step is to stick an old
Western Digital Caviar 31600 hard drive that I had sitting around into
my Linux box and try to load Redhat onto it. It's only a 2gig drive,
and I can't get much on it, but if it loads without any errors, maybe
it will point to my 40GB drive being faulty. Hmm...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "spakka"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 07 Apr 2004 07:10:20 AM
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message news:<h2m670loobba8j5deti6842sdedvbg6sn0@4ax.com>...

I'm stumped at this point, seriously. My next step is to stick an old
Western Digital Caviar 31600 hard drive that I had sitting around into
my Linux box and try to load Redhat onto it. It's only a 2gig drive,
and I can't get much on it, but if it loads without any errors, maybe
it will point to my 40GB drive being faulty. Hmm...

When you enter the BIOS setup, is the drive correctly identified?
Note the disk geometry (cylinders, heads, sectors). Run the BIOS HDD
auto-detect feature. Does the geometry stay the same?
Does your partially installed system boot OK? If so, does 'df' show
any filesystem 100% full?
Otherwise, try to run 'fdisk /dev/hda' from a root login. You might
be able to boot from your installation CD - ISTR there's a maintenance
option from the welcome screen. If you can't run fdisk any other
way, you could start the installation process over again - if you're
not sick of the sight of it - and you'll be asked early on if you want
to run fdisk. (IIRC, Red Hat had it's own tool, but fdisk was still
an option).
Is the reported geometry correct? What happens when you print the
partition table? (Ignore the warning about large number of sectors).
Sorry if all of this is obvious, but you haven't said how you
partitioned your disk, and trying to install a filesystem on too small
a partition looks like an obvious suspect for your problem.
(Posted through Google)
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 07 Apr 2004 11:16:08 AM
(spakka) wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message

I'm stumped at this point, seriously. My next step is to stick an old
Western Digital Caviar 31600 hard drive that I had sitting around into
my Linux box and try to load Redhat onto it. It's only a 2gig drive,
and I can't get much on it, but if it loads without any errors, maybe
it will point to my 40GB drive being faulty. Hmm...

I got the 2gig drive to load first try, just in case you were
curious...

When you enter the BIOS setup, is the drive correctly identified?

It's set for auto-detect right now, and it seems to recognize
the full drive, at least in LBA format. In CHS format, it only
seems to recognize 17,475 of the 84,966 available.

Note the disk geometry (cylinders, heads, sectors). Run the BIOS HDD
auto-detect feature. Does the geometry stay the same?

Here's what comes up:
Phoenix BIOS version 4.0 6.0.8
CHS Format:
Cyls: 17475
Hds: 15
Spt: 63
LBA Format:
Total sectors: 80293248
Max Capacity: 41110 megabytes
LBA mode control: Enabled
Transfer Mode: Fast PIO 4
Ultra DMA mode: Mode 2
When running disk doctor, it actually reported 84,966 cylinders
instead of the 17,475 listed above in the CHS format. The number
of heads and spt were the same.
I tried doing a "user defined" drive and was going to type in
the 84,966, but the input box only allows 4 numbers. I don't
get it because it shows 5 numbers before I edit it, but I can't
type in 84,966. It chops off, or I can't type in the last 6.
Weird...

Does your partially installed system boot OK?

Yes.

If so, does 'df' show any filesystem 100% full?

No.

Otherwise, try to run 'fdisk /dev/hda' from a root login. You might
be able to boot from your installation CD - ISTR there's a maintenance
option from the welcome screen. If you can't run fdisk any other
way, you could start the installation process over again - if you're
not sick of the sight of it - and you'll be asked early on if you want
to run fdisk. (IIRC, Red Hat had it's own tool, but fdisk was still
an option).
Is the reported geometry correct? What happens when you print the
partition table? (Ignore the warning about large number of sectors).

It's okay to ignore that message? It tells me that the # of cylinders
is set to 5310, and that this is larger than 1024 and could cause
problems. I'm not sure what that means exactly...

Sorry if all of this is obvious, but you haven't said how you
partitioned your disk, and trying to install a filesystem on too small
a partition looks like an obvious suspect for your problem.

I don't think that's the problem. See my other post I made
earlier this morning. Thanks for your help so far. The tech
I talked to at Maxtor said this drive should work just fine as a
primary Linux drive if setup properly, but I'm beginning to wonder...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "spakka"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 08 Apr 2004 12:47:02 PM
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:16:08 +0000, Elroy Willis wrote:

usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk (spakka) wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message

I got the 2gig drive to load first try, just in case you were
curious...

OK, so it's not a problem with the CD or DVD drive.

When you enter the BIOS setup, is the drive correctly identified?


It's set for auto-detect right now, and it seems to recognize
the full drive, at least in LBA format. In CHS format, it only
seems to recognize 17,475 of the 84,966 available.

LBA is what you want. I'm sorry to waste your time asking about CHS.
I knew the numbers were only pretend, but I thought that you could still
multiply them together and get the expected number of 512 byte sectors.
Turns out I was talking through my arse. The Internet tells me that
the CHM values reported by the BIOS can be completely bogus.
<snip>

If so, does 'df' show any filesystem 100% full?


No.

I guess it just shows filesystems totalling ~8Gb.
<snip>

Is the reported geometry correct? What happens when you print the
partition table? (Ignore the warning about large number of sectors).


It's okay to ignore that message? It tells me that the # of cylinders
is set to 5310, and that this is larger than 1024 and could cause
problems. I'm not sure what that means exactly...

It specifically mentions old versions of LILO, which you don't
have. Everything else is supposed to be geometry-agnostic.

I don't think that's the problem. See my other post I made
earlier this morning. Thanks for your help so far. The tech
I talked to at Maxtor said this drive should work just fine as a
primary Linux drive if setup properly, but I'm beginning to wonder...

I'm guessing that if you print the partition table, 'p' from fdisk,
you only see the ~8Gb, and 'n' doesn't let you create a new
partition with the 32Gb unused space.
Hmm. Have you seen this?
<http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Large-Disk-HOWTO.html>
There were a couple of things in there which caught my eye:
1/ Newer BIOSes which handle large disks conventionally report
C=16383, H=16, S=63, (but do LBA correctly). Yours isn't doing this.
2/ What the BIOS calls 'LBA' might really be an older extended CHS
translation scheme which hits a limit about 8.4Gb.
HTH
.



User: "stoney"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 07 Apr 2004 10:37:19 AM
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:44:17 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>,
Message ID: <h2m670loobba8j5deti6842sdedvbg6sn0@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;

stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism;


<snip>

BTW, it seems that the trouble I had earlier with loading Perl and
Openoffice is because of disk space. For some reason, my whole
drive isn't being recognized. It's a brand new Maxtor Ultra ATA/133
40GB drive, but I think only 2GB is being recognized for some reason.


I tried to load an ISO of Debian Linux, and it got an out of space
error as well. It came with a bad sector scan utility that I ran, and
nothing abnormal came up, but at around 2GB into the load, it ran
out of space.


I'm not sure if I formatted the disk properly when I first got it,
or if maybe my BIOS is too old to recognize the whole drive or
what. Hmm...


Elroy, what's the motherboard and chipset? And what BIOS?


It's a Pentium II 300mhz with a Phoenix BIOS. I tried to find a BIOS
version but couldn't. While looking around in the BIOS setup utility,
I found a setting for "Large drive OS type" which I could change
between "DOS" and "Other", and it even had Unix listed under "Other,"
so I thought to myself "Yay, this is gonna fix the problem."

http://www.bitesizeinc.net/index.php/howto.Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery.27
Don't know if the above helps at all.
I was looking for the manufacturer and model number of your mobo.
Specifically, I wanted to see up to what size HD the MB would support.
I'm wondering if the age of the MB and chipset/bios is such the 40 Gig
HD is too big for it.
I'm seeming to recall 40 Gig was one such barrier. I do recall 64 was
one barrier.
If you are able to get the 2 Gig HD to work, then you're running into a
HD size barrier. I don't know if a bios upgrade would take care of it
of if you'll need to pick up an old Promise raid card to get around it.
There was a site where the data on the various HD size barriers could be
found, but darned if I can think of the proper terms for it to come up
in a search engine.


Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
User: "Elroy Willis"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 07 Apr 2004 11:58:06 AM
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism;

stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism;

<snip>

BTW, it seems that the trouble I had earlier with loading Perl and
Openoffice is because of disk space. For some reason, my whole
drive isn't being recognized. It's a brand new Maxtor Ultra ATA/133
40GB drive, but I think only 2GB is being recognized for some reason.
I tried to load an ISO of Debian Linux, and it got an out of space
error as well. It came with a bad sector scan utility that I ran, and
nothing abnormal came up, but at around 2GB into the load, it ran
out of space.
I'm not sure if I formatted the disk properly when I first got it,
or if maybe my BIOS is too old to recognize the whole drive or
what. Hmm...

Elroy, what's the motherboard and chipset? And what BIOS?

It's a Pentium II 300mhz with a Phoenix BIOS. I tried to find a BIOS
version but couldn't. While looking around in the BIOS setup utility,
I found a setting for "Large drive OS type" which I could change
between "DOS" and "Other", and it even had Unix listed under "Other,"
so I thought to myself "Yay, this is gonna fix the problem."

http://www.bitesizeinc.net/index.php/howto.Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery.27
Don't know if the above helps at all.
I was looking for the manufacturer and model number of your mobo.
Specifically, I wanted to see up to what size HD the MB would support.
I'm wondering if the age of the MB and chipset/bios is such the 40 Gig
HD is too big for it.

Here's a link to the motherboard specs:
http://h20015.www2.hp.com/hub_search/document.jhtml?lc=en&docName=bph05568
http://h20015.www2.hp.com/hub_search/document.jhtml?lc=en&docName=bph03925&prodId=pv8275&cc=us
The original computer came with an 8 gig drive which could quite
possibly be the problem. Maybe that was the maximum size the
BIOS can support without using LBA?
There was a checkbox during the Redhat install which was for
"Force LBA" which I didn't know whether to check or not, and quite
frankly, I think I might have checked it at least once during the
dozen or so times I tried to get Redhat to install onto the 40G
drive.

I'm seeming to recall 40 Gig was one such barrier. I do recall 64 was
one barrier.

Like I mentioned in another post, I ran across some people complaining
about not receiving an ATA card along with the hard drive in the box.
The article mentioned larger drives than 40G, such as 100 and 150G
drives, so I'm wondering if I need one of those cards to make the
drive function properly. I'm a bit confused at this point, since the
drive seems to be working okay as a secondary. I haven't hammered
it with a bunch of tasks yet, and maybe it'll fail for some reason, I
don't know...

If you are able to get the 2 Gig HD to work, then you're running into a
HD size barrier. I don't know if a bios upgrade would take care of it
of if you'll need to pick up an old Promise raid card to get around it.

I have no experience with Raid, except to kill bugs with. :)

There was a site where the data on the various HD size barriers could
be found, but darned if I can think of the proper terms for it to come up
in a search engine.

One thing I noticed which was interesting is that in the BIOS
settings, under the CHS format, the # of cylinders for the drive
is listed at 17,475. The heads is 16, and spt 63, which is the same
for the new drive, but according to my calculations, the 17,475
figures out to 8 megs, which was what the original hard drive was.
Like I said, I tried to use the user-defined setting and type in
the actual 84,966, but it wouldn't let me go beyond 4 characters
when I tried to type it in. I made sure to delete any spaces, etc,
but it just won't take a number larger than 4 digits, even though
it actually displays 5 digits (17475). I don't get it, but I'm
assuming that Linux isn't actually using CHS format anyway,
and is using the LBA mode, since I have it enabled in the BIOS.
Now to try to remember whether I actually clicked "Force LBA
mode" during the Redhat install. I do remember a warning message
saying that it could be dangerous to do so, and might cause boot
failure, but being pretty desperate at many points, I'm pretty sure
I tried that, at least once, but I can't say for sure... Oh well...
I'm also curious what the "Transfer Mode - Fast PIO 4" means,
and what the options are. I know for sure I didn't change that
setting, because I have no idea what it means.
Ah, the joys of new hardware and software...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
User: "stoney"

Title: Re: OT - Linux Questions 09 Apr 2004 03:30:41 PM
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:58:06 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>,
Message ID: <mna870dnc9t7jogtv9s38e39550j4ipp7g@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;

stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism;

stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in alt.atheism;


<snip>


BTW, it seems that the trouble I had earlier with loading Perl and
Openoffice is because of disk space. For some reason, my whole
drive isn't being recognized. It's a brand new Maxtor Ultra ATA/133
40GB drive, but I think only 2GB is being recognized for some reason.


I tried to load an ISO of Debian Linux, and it got an out of space
error as well. It came with a bad sector scan utility that I ran, and
nothing abnormal came up, but at around 2GB into the load, it ran
out of space.


I'm not sure if I formatted the disk properly when I first got it,
or if maybe my BIOS is too old to recognize the whole drive or
what. Hmm...


Elroy, what's the motherboard and chipset? And what BIOS?


It's a Pentium II 300mhz with a Phoenix BIOS. I tried to find a BIOS
version but couldn't. While looking around in the BIOS setup utility,
I found a setting for "Large drive OS type" which I could change
between "DOS" and "Other", and it even had Unix listed under "Other,"
so I thought to myself "Yay, this is gonna fix the problem."


http://www.bitesizeinc.net/index.php/howto.Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery.27


Don't know if the above helps at all.


I was looking for the manufacturer and model number of your mobo.
Specifically, I wanted to see up to what size HD the MB would support.
I'm wondering if the age of the MB and chipset/bios is such the 40 Gig
HD is too big for it.


Here's a link to the motherboard specs:
http://h20015.www2.hp.com/hub_search/document.jhtml?lc=en&docName=bph05568
http://h20015.www2.hp.com/hub_search/document.jhtml?lc=en&docName=bph03925&prodId=pv8275&cc=us

The original computer came with an 8 gig drive which could quite
possibly be the problem. Maybe that was the maximum size the
BIOS can support without using LBA?

LBA is ;
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214074,00.html
logical block addressing
Logical block addressing is a technique that allows a computer to
address a hard disk larger than 528 megabytes. A logical block address
is a 28-bit value that maps to a specific cylinder-head-sector address
on the disk. 28 bits allows sufficient variation to specify addresses on
a hard disk up to 8.4 gigabytes in data storage capacity. Logical block
addressing is one of the defining features of Enhanced IDE (EIDE), a
hard disk interface to the computer bus or data paths.
Serial ATA
Serial ATA (Serial Advanced Technology Attachment or SATA) is a new
standard for connecting hard drives into computer systems. As its name
implies, SATA is based on serial signaling technology, unlike current
IDE (Integrated Drive Electronics) hard drives that use parallel
signaling.
SATA has several practical advantages over the parallel signaling (also
called Parallel ATA or PATA) that has been used in hard drives since the
1980s. SATA cables are more flexible, thinner, and less massive than the
ribbon cables required for conventional PATA hard drives. SATA cables
can be considerably longer than PATA ribbon cables, allowing the
designer more latitude in the physical layout of a system. Because there
are fewer conductors (only 7 in SATA as compared with 40 in PATA),
crosstalk and electromagnetic interference (EMI) are less likely to be
troublesome. The signal voltage is much lower as well (250 mV for SATA
as compared with 5 V for PATA).

There was a checkbox during the Redhat install which was for
"Force LBA" which I didn't know whether to check or not, and quite
frankly, I think I might have checked it at least once during the
dozen or so times I tried to get Redhat to install onto the 40G
drive.

I'm seeming to recall 40 Gig was one such barrier. I do recall 64 was
one barrier.


Like I mentioned in another post, I ran across some people complaining
about not receiving an ATA card along with the hard drive in the box.
The article mentioned larger drives than 40G, such as 100 and 150G
drives, so I'm wondering if I need one of those cards to make the
drive function properly. I'm a bit confused at this point, since the
drive seems to be working okay as a secondary. I haven't hammered
it with a bunch of tasks yet, and maybe it'll fail for some reason, I
don't know...

If you are able to get the 2 Gig HD to work, then you're running into a
HD size barrier. I don't know if a bios upgrade would take care of it
of if you'll need to pick up an old Promise raid card to get around it.


I have no experience with Raid, except to kill bugs with. :)

There was a site where the data on the various HD size barriers could
be found, but darned if I can think of the proper terms for it to come up
in a search engine.


One thing I noticed which was interesting is that in the BIOS
settings, under the CHS format, the # of cylinders for the drive
is listed at 17,475. The heads is 16, and spt 63, which is the same
for the new drive, but according to my calculations, the 17,475
figures out to 8 megs, which was what the original hard drive was.

Like I said, I tried to use the user-defined setting and type in
the actual 84,966, but it wouldn't let me go beyond 4 characters
when I tried to type it in. I made sure to delete any spaces, etc,
but it just won't take a number larger than 4 digits, even though
it actually displays 5 digits (17475). I don't get it, but I'm
assuming that Linux isn't actually using CHS format anyway,
and is using the LBA mode, since I have it enabled in the BIOS.

CHS sounds like it might be 'checksum.'
Damned if I know. The tech site doesn't list it to define it.

Now to try to remember whether I actually clicked "Force LBA
mode" during the Redhat install. I do remember a warning message
saying that it could be dangerous to do so, and might cause boot
failure, but being pretty desperate at many points, I'm pretty sure
I tried that, at least once, but I can't say for sure... Oh well...

I'm also curious what the "Transfer Mode - Fast PIO 4" means,
and what the options are. I know for sure I didn't change that
setting, because I have no idea what it means.

http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/ata_to_ultraata66.html

Ah, the joys of new hardware and software...

http://developer.intel.com/design/chipsets/designex/440LX_DP.htm


Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.






















  Page 1 of 3

1

 

2

 

3

 


Related Articles