On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 01:43:42PM -0600, Kent West wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I kind of like the suggestion from a previous post that this ignorant net
admin of yours be brought to task over his administrative decisions. Isn't
his job ultimately to provide a network
I kind of like the suggestion from a previous post that this ignorant net
admin of yours be brought to task over his administrative decisions. Isn't
his job ultimately to provide a network infrastructure that makes end-users
more productive? Seems to me that his draconic nothing but NT stance
At 09:27 AM 12/19/99 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a dilemma at work. They use Windoze (NT at the moment) and will not
allow me to use Linux instead. Yet Linux is my choice both personally and
professionally (given the tools my discipline has which run under the two
environments, Linux
How about a second NIC in the Windows machine, with a cross-over
cable to the NIC in the Linux machine? Or PPP over a serial cable?
You might have some trouble convincing the Windows machine that
you can establish a PPP connection without dialing a phone number;
the two services seem pretty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/19/99
at 11:56 AM, Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Would it be acceptable to just set up the Linux box with a static route
pointing at your NT box and no default route? This would prevent it from
talking to any other machines
You shouldn't have any problem doing per-adapter setup under NT.
The biggest issue I can think of is routing, since NT wants to do all
of that automatically, but I think with appropriate choice of IP address
and netmask, you can make it work OK.
I kind of like the suggestion from a previous post
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/20/99
at 10:38 AM, Marc Mongeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You shouldn't have any problem doing per-adapter setup under NT. The biggest
issue I can think of is routing, since NT wants to do all of that
automatically, but I think with appropriate choice of IP address
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I kind of like the suggestion from a previous post that this ignorant net
admin of yours be brought to task over his administrative decisions. Isn't
his job ultimately to provide a network infrastructure that makes end-users
more productive? Seems to me that
I have a dilemma at work. They use Windoze (NT at the moment) and will not
allow me to use Linux instead. Yet Linux is my choice both personally and
professionally (given the tools my discipline has which run under the two
environments, Linux is a born winner). I Am allowed to use it as long as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a dilemma at work. They use Windoze (NT at the moment) and will not
allow me to use Linux instead. Yet Linux is my choice both personally and
professionally (given the tools my discipline has which run under the two
environments, Linux is a born winner). I Am
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/19/99
at 01:42 PM, Marcin Kurc [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
But let's get to the point. I understand that you have Windows box and Linux
box, you could install wingate on Windows box and put another network card
in it. This way you could have local ip on your
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/19/99
at 11:56 AM, Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Would it be acceptable to just set up the Linux box with a static route
pointing at your NT box and no default route? This would prevent it from
talking to any other machines even if it's physically using
12 matches
Mail list logo
