In article <[email protected]>, Bob Latham <[email protected]> wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, > Frank de Bruijn <[email protected]> wrote: > > In article <[email protected]>, > > george greenfield <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Of course I would prefer to be running 5.19 and get the advantages > > > over 4.02 that would bring, but ATM reliable, hands-off (i.e. not > > > having to rebuild settings after each reboot) networking is a > > > must-have for me. Sounds like 5.19 is not there yet, > > > unfortunately.
> > That seems to depend on the host operating system. Here it works > > just as well as 4.39, with Debian Linux as the host. Appears to me > > like it's more a rpcemu issue than some problem with 5.19. > I've installed RPCEmu on 3 XP machines and got all 3 working with > networking OS 4.39. However, none of them survive a machine reboot > with a complete re-configure of the bridge needed each time and in two > of the cases you also have need of a full moon and months with a J in > them. Here it only tends to fail on even numbered Mondays in months without a double a (in Dutch). But seriously, my point was I see no difference in behaviour between 4.39 and 5.19 as far as networking is concerned. I start rpcemu with a small shell script which sets up the IP tunnel and then runs the emulator. If I need to reboot, I just quit the emulator and restart so the tunnel is created again. The script also handles switching in the correct ROM, CMOS and !Boot (using symlinks), depending on whether I want 4.39 or 5.19. I just had a brief glance at the networking guide for RPCEmu on Windows and all I can say is that I'm glad I no longer use Windows... Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Rpcemu mailing list [email protected] http://www.riscos.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rpcemu
