BARRY MARTIN wrote:
> Hi Ky!
> > My experiementation and recollections aren't sufficient to verify or
> > dispute. Here usually LiveCD is to do an installation and at that point
> > I don't care if that computer sees the other computers or not.
> KM> Whereas one of my criteria for eventual hardware install is "Can
> KM> you see the bloody network? At least sometimes??"
> I wonder if the problem is with whichever device is assigning the IP?
That would be the router, and it does just fine.
See this?
C:\WINDOWS>ping 192.168.0.5
Pinging 192.168.0.5 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.5:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
===
This is Windows pinging the PCLinuxOS box.
Win10 and 11 can connect to said box. XP cannot. But it can ping it fine!
It's something in the network protocols that's different.
Also, something goofy in the Samba server.
It also affects FTP to an outside site, as of a few months ago XP no
longer works, but a lot longer for linux desktops. (It used to work
better, or more often.)
Meanwhile, the PCLOS box can only see one drive of the XP64 box. Sometimes.
It cannot see the Fedora box. Which doesn't see any Windows box.
> If it was just one computer or one brand of interface card I could sort
> of see the problem among multiple devices, but as you are having
> problems across numerous computers maybe 'the other end' of the
> connection. ..."Live works, installed does not" - guss
Across multiple different linux systems, too. They don't like each
other, they don't like XP, but they do let Win10 snoop.
Linux demands a login from XP, then won't accept any credentials.
Doesn't even ask who-are-you to Win10.
> Troubleshooting Point #1 is are the two the same IP? And maybe that's causing
> an issue with your firewall or some sort of protective point: it originally
> allowed the fingerprint for when on Live CD, now something
> has been changed with the full installation.
Nope, wouldn't be anything like that. It's somewhere in the network
protocols that do not like each other much. I'd guess a live CD loads a generic
version of Samba (or at least generic settings), which proceeds
to handle things properly, but installed version is not so generic and
therefore does not work. And may not even install Samba. (I'm lookin' at
you, PCLOS...)
> > Virtual Machine.... know it sometimes has problems even transferring
> > data to the host machine even with that scratchpad function set. (Ever
> > do SneakerNet from one machine to the same physical machine?!)
> KM> Yeah, have seen that. You can set it bidirectional all you want,
> KM> all you get is "Huh??"
> Yup. I've also tried the untic trick: click so it looks 'off' but as
> long as the computer thinks it's 'on'.
Yeah, sometimes there's a flipped flag somewhere.
> KM> Or ... "Host? What host??" tho that tends to go along with
> KM> "Network? What network??" (can still see internet, usually...)
> KM> Host is actually a network drive for the VM, and if it can't see
> KM> the network...
> KM> I have resorted to turning data into an ISO image, then loading
> KM> that in the VM's optical drive and reading it with WinRAR. I
> KM> guess that's sneakernet on the same machine!
> Much more data than I'm moving around!
Oh, an ISO can be very small, just make an image file with some ISO creator.
> KM> Let's hear it for LiveISOs!!
> <crowd roars!>
I can't hear you!!
> KM> host... I did get Win2K to make a nice VM and that runs fine,
> KM> with no issues, tho the video component of the Guest Additions
> KM> took a good 15 minutes to trawl through every video driver known
> KM> to man....
> At least it's trying! (Very trying!!) ...Your trials and
> tribulations sort of remind me of the problems I had with RoseReader --
> the OLMR. The BBS was a beta site. I could never get RoseReader to
> quite work right: close but not quite. My configuration was right,
> confirmed by by others. We finally copied my RR files, config, etc., to
> floppy/CD (I don't recall the details) and someone else tested -- of
> course he never had any problems!
I remember that Rose Reader existed. <g>
But yeah, sometimes it's something very obscure and not even related to
the software in question. Some TSR with a wrong address byte, that sort
of thing.
> KM> I do have Win8.1 in a VM on XP64 (Win10 is better, but threw up
> KM> all over the older VirtualBox) and that works fine... useful when
> KM> I need to access my hosting, which no longer speaks to any XP FTP
> KM> client, with the weird exception of commandline FTP, which works
> KM> just fine. If you don't mind OMG tedium to do anything.
> I have to admire your system security! <g>
Perfectly secure. <g>
> KM> I see most every linux distro has finally decided that average
> KM> people do NOT need to run the Apache webserver full time (yes,
> KM> they all did that, it was part of why in the early days
> KM> performance was dismal) which greatly reduces the attack surface.
> KM> Apache was the main ingress route for linux malware... and why
> KM> does ANY desktop system need to run it??
> No wonder your stuff doesn't work: you don't have your Indian guide! <g>
I think mine is the one with his ear pressed to the road.
Cowboy: Who just went by?
Chief Ear-to-Road: Two wagons, six cowboys, and a dozen steers.
Cowboy: Wow, you got all that from listening to the ground?
Chief Ear-to-Road: No, from when they ran me over!!
> ..Just checked: apache and apache2 not installed here, or at least on
> this system. And yes, the more stuff added and running the slower the
> system is going to be: can only do so much at a time.
Yeah, as I noted, it stopped a few years back. But it was a point of
utter stupidity for about 20 years, at least with the major distros.
> > ...I'd be willing to bet my old DEC Rainbow
> > 100 running DOS 2.11 would be trashed quickly. ...Well, might take a
> > while: as I recall 4Kbps modem.
> KM> LOL. There really wasn't much that could infect DOS over a modem,
> KM> because DOS didn't execute anything by default. I can just barely
> KM> see some sort of BIOS firmware worm managing it, but... why??
> Because it's challenge.
Because it's probably impossible. <g>
> > KM> And then he says, "I don't think the firewall is much good" ...
> > KM> <headdesk>
> > Once disabled it is no good!
> KM> This is true. In fact, I can think of few programs that run
> KM> better when they're not running...
>
> If the 'guard' at the firewall doesn't have to check each packet's
> identity things would be faster. Not only clear sailing in and out of
> the computer the CPU doesn't have to do the thinking of the goard.
On a very slow sPC you could see ZoneAlarm lagging the system. But by
the middle-Pentium era, we have enough horsepower that it's not a problem.
> KM> In the old days, Windows did not upgrade gracefully, in part
> KM> because it tried to preserve all your programs and settings, and
> KM> those had DLL dependencies all over the place. They seem to have
> KM> fixed that with the 8/10/11 chain; now you can't tell what's been
> KM> upgraded and what was a scratch install. However, it no longer
> KM> goes to special lengths to preserve anything, other than what's
> KM> in your /User profile.
> The probably eliminated a ton of variables and so testing time to just
> stick with that handful of options.
I think the real issue is that Windows has become so complex (how on
earth does Win11 need 25GB on disk and 4GB of RAM just to admire its
navel??) that there is no supporting any variables anymore.
> KM> Linux version upgrades used to be a mess, rarely worked right,
> KM> and a clean install was indeed the only sane alternative. Some
> KM> have figured out that regular users do not like doing a
> KM> resinstall every six months, and have finally got it right.
> I'd like the latest and greatest but from past experience have found
> "poop occurs" and stuff doesn't work, therefore the 'rolling hardware'
> as a safety net. And doing upgrades takes time: while I'm babysitting
> the machine I can't do too much else.
Yeah, good policy.
> .. We have biscuits and Triscuits, where are monscuit and quadriscuits?
This is a good question!
■ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS ■ Hollywood, Ca ■ www.techware2k.com
--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)
|
