Hi,
When I try to run the command:
XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447
that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm running XFree86 on win XP/2K
or NT. But if I try to run this on windows 95, it bombs out.
Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 9
From: "J S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: XDMCP on Windows 95
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:14:28 +
> Hi,
>
> When I try to run the command:
>
> XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447
>
> that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm runni
> Hi,
>
> When I try to run the command:
>
> XWin -query smpd9 -fp tcp/smpd9:7100 -from a217447
>
> that brings up the solaris xdmcp session if I'm running XFree86 on win
XP/2K
> or NT. But if I try to run this on windows 95, it bombs out.
>
> Is this becau
s on windows 95, it bombs out.
Good. A very short error description with nearly no information.
What's in /tmp/XWin.log
What does xdm tell
Is there any network traffic
> Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95?
It does support windows 95.
bye
ago
s on windows 95, it bombs out.
Good. A very short error description with nearly no information.
What's in /tmp/XWin.log
What does xdm tell
Is there any network traffic
> Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95?
It does suppor
s on windows 95, it bombs out.
Good. A very short error description with nearly no information.
What's in /tmp/XWin.log
What does xdm tell
Is there any network traffic
> Is this because Xfree86 doesn't support XDMCP on Windows 95?
It does suppor
J S wrote:
> Fatal server error:
> XDMCP fatal error: Session declined No valid address
>
> And yes I have read the FAQ and used the -from flag. There aren't any errors
> in the xdm logs, so I tried to run the xdm in debug:
>
> xdm -udpPort 6556 -nodaemon -debug 10 -config
Why this port? The
--- Alexander Gottwald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a
écrit : > J S wrote:
>
> > Fatal server error:
> > XDMCP fatal error: Session declined No valid address
> >
> > And yes I have read the FAQ and used the -from flag. There aren't
> any errors
> > in the xdm logs, so I tried to run the xdm in debug:
>
Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
> > > xdm -udpPort 6556 -nodaemon -debug 10 -config
> >
> > Why this port? The default port is 177.
> Alexander, this exactly Microsoft problem : M$ is building its products
> thinking all people is using defaults, hiding some bugs that appear
> only in some cases.
If
Sylvain,
I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default
port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has
decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the
case, then a simple mention that ``Product Foo'' uses port 177 would
have been
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:33:26PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>I am not understanding why your response was appropriate. The default
>port for XDM has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has
>decided to use port 177 for one of their products. If that was the
>case, then a simple
Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good
contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly
reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone
down our messages. That's all.
Harold
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 20
Okay, okay, but I didn't want to be that hard on Sylvain as he is a good
contributor to our discussions... I just wanted to put up a friendly
reminder that everyone, I more so than others, should sometimes tone down
our messages. That's all.
Harold
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Dec
You're correct, I should have said 'product foo'...
I took Microsoft as example because it was the first company I had in
mind. I don't have anything against Microsoft, otherwise I wouldn't use
Cygwin ;)
In the company I'm working now, almost every network TCP port is
customized. What I wanted to
Ah ha... okay, but in this case it would be good to at least rule out
the non-standard port as a possible culprit. Once the port is ruled
out, we can move on to other possible solutions.
Harold
Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
You're correct, I should have said 'product foo'...
I took Microsoft as exa
Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page:
XDMCP OPTIONS
X servers that support XDMCP have the following options.
See the X Display Manager Control Protocol specification
for more information.
-query host-name
Enable XDMCP a
That's exactly what I have read in Alexander's answer:
=> Why this port? The default port is 177.
Excuse me.
> Your response would be barely understandable if someone had said "Hey
> don't use a non-standard port!" but given that there was no hint of
> that
> in Alexander's response and it was ver
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 04:05:00AM +0100, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
>That's exactly what I have read in Alexander's answer:
>=> Why this port? The default port is 177.
>Excuse me.
Um, that was a private message. Poor netiquette, there.
cgf
Thanks,
I tried specifying the port but nothing happened (incidentally the port
number goes before the -query). I'm at a bit of a loss now as everyone on
this list says that they can run xdmcp on windows 95, but I can't. Yet I can
get it to run on win NT, 2000 and XP. The problem
I tried using the -ac on here as well but it didn't work :(
JS.
Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page:
XDMCP OPTIONS
X servers that support XDMCP have the following options.
See the X Display Manager Control Protocol specification
for more
I just found out that if I do:
xwin -fullscreen -depth 32
on the win95 machine, XFree fails to start. It only works when I set the
depth to 8. Could this explain why I couldn't get xdmcp to work on my
windows 95 machine?
Yup, you can specify the port number. From the ``man Xserver'' page:
X
JS,
That depends, were you passing those parameters to XWin.exe when trying
to use XDMCP? If you were, then yes, they are likely the reason that
XDMCP was failing, as XWin.exe was failing to start. If you were not
passing those parameters, then it really does not matter that XWin.exe
fails w
All i did was :
xwin -query host -fp host:7100 -from mypc
I didn't pass the extra parms so I guess there was a flaw in that theory!
I'm clutching at straws a bit now though 'cos I'm desperate to sort this
out. I would have a look at the source code but I can imagine it's going to
be huge and
Well, do you have any VPN software installed on the Windows 95 machine,
or have you previously had some VPN software installed on that machine?
A lot of the VPN programs replace many of the networking files and they
are usually incompatible with Cygwin/XFree86. Some of those programs
cause pro
/ "J S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| All i did was :
>
| xwin -query host -fp host:7100 -from mypc
>
| I didn't pass the extra parms so I guess there was a flaw in that
| theory! I'm clutching at straws a bit now though 'cos I'm desperate to
| sort this out. I would have a look at the source code
J S wrote:
> Would I be right
> in saying though that the most likely cause has got to be something windows
> 95-network related since the original message said invalid address and this
> only occurs on win 95?
Have you already tried the ls_netdev tool as suggested?
bye
ago
--
[EMAIL PR
Andrew Markebo wrote:
> Just another wild thought.. not only VPN.. any other socket
> handling/protecting software on the 95? Does the machine have winsock
> 2 (does cygwin require winsock 2?)??
no. cygwin does work even with the old win95a class socket layer
bye
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:/
J S wrote:
> Would I be right
> in saying though that the most likely cause has got to be something
windows
> 95-network related since the original message said invalid address and
this
> only occurs on win 95?
Have you already tried the ls_netdev tool as suggested?
bye
ago
--
Hi Al
J S wrote:
> Sorry I didn't realise what ls_netdev was before. I will try it tomorrow
> when I go back to work.
Maybe this will bring some light to the problem.
> Anything suspicious there?
Only that the dll reports more accourate values than ls_netdev *g*
bye
ago
NP: Blutengel - Wonderl
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, J S wrote:
> Here's the output I got from ls_netdev, although what's confusing is I'm
> using a token ring network connection, not ethernet as the output seems
to
> suggest:
The code for win95 can only distinguish between ppp and other network
interfaces.
>
> $ ls_netdev-
J S wrote:
> Sorry I didn't realise what ls_netdev was before. I will try it tomorrow
> when I go back to work.
Maybe this will bring some light to the problem.
> Anything suspicious there?
Only that the dll reports more accourate values than ls_netdev *g*
bye
ago
Hi Alex,
Here's th
J S wrote:
> Sorry I didn't realise what ls_netdev was before. I will try it tomorrow
> when I go back to work.
Maybe this will bring some light to the problem.
> Anything suspicious there?
Only that the dll reports more accourate values than ls_netdev *g*
bye
ago
I finally got XDM wor
J S wrote:
> Sorry I didn't realise what ls_netdev was before. I will try it tomorrow
> when I go back to work.
Maybe this will bring some light to the problem.
> Anything suspicious there?
Only that the dll reports more accourate values than ls_netdev *g*
bye
ago
NP: Blutengel - Wonder
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, J S wrote:
> Here's the output I got from ls_netdev, although what's confusing is I'm
> using a token ring network connection, not ethernet as the output seems to
> suggest:
The code for win95 can only distinguish between ppp and other network
interfaces.
>
> $ ls_netdev-
J S wrote:
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\NetTrans\0002]
> "DriverDesc"="TCP/IP"
> "IPAddress"="10.252.20.185"
This is after you changed the IP-Address to fixed?
bye
ago
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
J S wrote:
>
> I finally got XDM working on Windows 95 after changing my IP address to
> fixed. It seems it doesn't work with DHCP (on win 95), is that right?
It seems that the IP Address for DHCP configured inerfaces is not stored
in the registry. The next days I'll powerup the win95 vmware and
J S wrote:
> Yes. Sorry I should have given you the dump with DHCP. I will try and
get
> that for you tomorrow.
You don't need to. I'll have to check some other sources of information
in windows. The registry is only for static values. The dynamic values
as used with DHCP are not reflected
J S wrote:
>
> With DHCP, you can actually get the IP address by looking in:
>
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\DHCP]
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\DHCP\DhcpInfo00]
On my win95 host only the DhcpInfo and OptionInfo keys exist. But it seems
38 matches
Mail list logo
