Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

One comment to the thread subject, rather than to any particular post. We would do well to remember that trying to participate in a mailing list or a newsgroup with an MUA is an inherent contradiction in purpose. Put another way, ordinary e-mail and postings to newsgroups and mailing lists are

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:37:40PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: [...] > > I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so > > if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead! > > Thank you! I accept. Fortunately

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +1300 Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > tomas said: > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Monday 19 October 2015 08:28:16 Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +1300 > > Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > tomas said: > > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:41:38PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 21:17:46 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible. > > I know it is, but not with a simple three or

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Monday 19 October 2015 07:47:53 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:47:02PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > tomas said: > > > > Yes, you are right

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. Hallelujah! Thank

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:47:02PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > tomas said: > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > > > *not* > > >

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Sunday 18 October 2015 20:21:49 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote: > > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > >

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:30AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. As in a

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Monday 19 October 2015 09:44:56 Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:30AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > > CoC (especially

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:39:13AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Monday 19 October 2015 16:35:03 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:39:13AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > > > be changed. I'm just

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 21:17:46 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > > > I'd also like the copy to

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > tomas said: > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > > *not* > > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express > > this wish with the headers in use for this

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote: > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: [...] >

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be > > discarded. > > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of >

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote: > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be > > > discarded. > > > > The ultimate feature

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > > like a charm. > > No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * >

Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0300, Reco wrote: [...] We are seriously off-topic by now. I'd propose to take this off-list. It has been hashed out to death numerous times and the result has always been well, duh, opinions differ. > You mean

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > > like a charm. > > No doubt due to my inability to

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

Hi. On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:27:21 +0200 wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > [...] > > We are seriously off-topic by now. I'd propose to take this off-list. > It has been hashed out to

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:12:53PM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Sat, October 17, 2015 4:58 pm, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC ... > > Speaking of the Code of Conduct, a matter of much greater import is a >

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 01:07:45PM +0300, Reco wrote: [Mail-Followup-T] > True. The only problem is - this very e-mail I'm replying to does not > contain Mail-Followup-To nor Followup-To :) Without a doubt it must be > related to your mutt or

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

On Sunday 18 October 2015 16:04:47 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > With a sensible mail reader, the responder just > has to choose "respond to list" and all is well. Yes. That is not the problem. The problem is responders who *deliberately* don't respond to list. You claim to know how to set one's

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 18 October 2015 16:04:47 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > With a sensible mail reader, the responder just > > has to choose "respond to list" and all is well. > > Yes. That is not

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Sat, October 17, 2015 4:58 pm, Lisi Reisz wrote: > And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC ... Speaking of the Code of Conduct, a matter of much greater import is a severe constraint which is being forced upon e-mail users in general by the stupid and widespread practice of (1) associating an

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:51:22PM +0300, Reco wrote: > PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to > send CC on this list. Reco, before scolding someone on this, consider setting the "Followup-To" or the "Mail-Followup-To"

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Sat 17 Oct 2015 at 18:51:22 +0300, Reco wrote: > Inability to read OP's mail carefully and in detail did you a > disservice. You see, OP's problem was not about printer configuration. > It was about Debian's network configuration. It would be nice if the OP issued a disclaimer that Debian was

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:38:02 +0200 wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:51:22PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to > > send CC on this list. > > Reco, > > before

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Hi. On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:09:11 -0400 "John D. Hendrickson" wrote: > Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500 > > rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > > > >> Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > >> install a HP

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > like a charm. No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 17:40:57 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:11 pm, Brian wrote: > > An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to the > > external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know I have > > much to learn about

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting > the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original > printer's address. That, and not understanding that the ip address reported by Windows was assigned

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:11:45 +0100 Brian wrote: > > An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to > the external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know > I have much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the > offing? >

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:47:22 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:27 pm, Felix Miata wrote: > > An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a > > WAN nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it > > should function no differently

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On 16/10/2015 09:13, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if not, you know what it is. If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble. The day I was there, the address

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): > On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: > > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting > > the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original > > printer's address. > > That, and not

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote: > > Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? > > What about printer's MAC? > > Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration Page", which provides the >

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote: > Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? > What about printer's MAC? Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration Page", which provides the following: IP ADDRESS: 192.168.1.210 SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0 DEF. GATEWAY:

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) > consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I > think also is router) and

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On 15/10/2015 06:34, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think also is router) and an ethernet switch.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 2:33 am, Martin Smith wrote: > with most laser printers you can access their control interface with a > browser, just connect your laptop directly to it and point your browser at > the address the printer gives, this is assuming it does not have a front > panel you can

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Hi. On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) > consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think > also

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:18 am, Joe wrote: > I think you just missed it, until Win7 there was a Telnet client. You > can install/enable one (genuine MS) on 8, I have done it but a while ago, > the details are out there somewhere. Installing anything on the other guy's machine is asking for

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 03:45:24 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:18 am, Joe wrote: > > > I'd expect one with an > > Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration. > > I have not yet found mention of one regarding the hp2100tn. nmap > > Best not go

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 14:53:16 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > > > > > > I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here. I installed tcpdump. I > > > see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 14:53:16 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > > > > I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here. I installed tcpdump. I > > see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67. > > So the printer uses statically assinged IP.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:01 pm, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but I > understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I suppose > include a firewall and DHCP server. Have you any recommendations as to > brand and

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the > > network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet. > > Brian - > > Could you give some hints as to how two

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Hi. On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:01:01 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:57:13 +0300 Reco wrote: > Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as > (and require special training). Cheap > models are spyware-ridden. > Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to > design

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:11 pm, Brian wrote: > An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to the > external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know I have > much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the offing? No; in the present (original)

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:27 pm, Felix Miata wrote: > An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a WAN > nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it should > function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned in your OP. Perhaps I do not

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Reco a écrit : > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > printer uses DHCP for configuration. /To/ 0.0.0.0 ? AFAIK, 0.0.0.0 is not a valid destination address, and DHCP requests are sent to

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 22:10:43 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100 > Brian wrote: > > > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > > > > No you don't. You only have change the

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 4:03 pm, Joe wrote: > Pretty much any of the well-known names should be OK, ... Thanks, Joe. I am saving this email for the next time I need a router. Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the > network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet. Brian - Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share one IP without some sort of routing? Lisi

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:59 pm, David Wright wrote: > Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): >> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is >> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the >> DHCP server of the ISP. > If you really

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 2:42 pm, Doug wrote: > It should be easy to change, following instructions that came > with the printer. But that is the essence of the problem! The instructions which came with the printer (which are buried in a HP2100TN user manual which I found on line) end with the

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:58:21 Brian wrote: > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the > > > network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

rlhar...@oplink.net composed on 2015-10-15 17:06 (UTC-0500): > I have read numerous articles on security and I think that I understand > the issues. However, I need a solution, if possible, by tomorrow. The > WRT110 is here on my desk; it works and costs me nothing. An internet router with

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 15:01:01 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:53:29 +0200 Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Reco a écrit : > > > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > > printer uses DHCP for configuration. >

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as root): > > > >

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > (eth0 for simplicity). > > Run (as root): > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > "ping

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match > > > the network it is on. You know

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, October 15, 2015 4:24 pm, Reco wrote: >> Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing >> between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more >> spyware-ridden than Windows? > But since OP has a freedom to choose, > why not choose a good thing instead of

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:01:01 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Hi. On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:12:58 +0100 Joe wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:57:13 +0300 > Reco wrote: > > > > Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as > > (and require special training). Cheap > > models are

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 22:10:43 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100 > Brian wrote: > > > > If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an > > IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job. > > > > I assume

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): > On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:59 pm, David Wright wrote: > > Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): > >> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > >> receiving via a radio link a single address

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

On 10/15/2015 07:53 AM, Reco wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote: Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? What about printer's MAC? Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration

direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think also is router) and an ethernet switch. Through Control Panel, I learned that the

Re: Direct ethernet

Tommy McCabe wrote: I have a direct ethernet connection (no visible card, wire just plugs into computer) That is just like a 'card'. It is just built into your PC and you can not 'tear it out' like a regular card. But you access it like it was one. Even windows thinks it is a ehternet-card

Direct ethernet

I have a direct ethernet connection (no visible card, wire just plugs into computer) that connects to a cable modem which is connected to the Internet and another computer. The Internet works fine via Windows, but Debian won't access anything. Everything points to an Ethernet card (which I

Re: Direct ethernet

Tommy McCabe wrote: I have a direct ethernet connection (no visible card, wire just plugs into computer) that connects to a cable modem which is connected to the Internet and another computer. The Internet works fine via Windows, but Debian won't access anything. Everything points

Re: Direct ethernet

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:14:58PM -0400, Tommy McCabe wrote: I have a direct ethernet connection (no visible card, wire just plugs into computer) that connects to a cable modem which is connected to the Internet and another computer. The Internet works fine via Windows, but Debian won't