On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 21:13 -0800, Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > The other diskless machine on another nic off of the same server, dodo,
> > boots just fine by the way. Is something obviously wrong in my dhcp
> > config file or am I looking at a problem with the switch? DHCP worked
> > when I was usi
> The other diskless machine on another nic off of the same server, dodo,
> boots just fine by the way. Is something obviously wrong in my dhcp
> config file or am I looking at a problem with the switch? DHCP worked
> when I was using a 10BaseT hub which makes me wonder if the line can't
> suppor
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Michael Robinson
wrote:
> I'm trying to replace a 10BaseT DLink hub with a 100 Base TX DSS 5+
> switch. DHCP doesn't work anymore.
>
> The server is on one end connected via an FA311 netgear card. From
> there, a 100' Cat5e cable runs to the switch in the attic.
I'm trying to replace a 10BaseT DLink hub with a 100 Base TX DSS 5+
switch. DHCP doesn't work anymore.
The server is on one end connected via an FA311 netgear card. From
there, a 100' Cat5e cable runs to the switch in the attic. Then I
go to Cat5 STP cable for an additional 90' outside, underg
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Denis Heidtmann
wrote:
> Thanks for all the information and advice. Unfortunately, Carlos'
> comment about dsl modems applies in my situation: an Actiontec modem
> from Qwest. So attempts to change its dhcp behavior will not bear
> fruit. My use of resolvconf is
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Russell Senior wrote:
> > "Carlos" == Carlos Konstanski
> writes:
>
> Carlos> Easy pal, no one is trying to steer you wrong. It can feel
> Carlos> like that if you remain fixated on a solution that isn't
> Carlos> necessarily the best. The best solution: get
> "Carlos" == Carlos Konstanski writes:
Carlos> Easy pal, no one is trying to steer you wrong. It can feel
Carlos> like that if you remain fixated on a solution that isn't
Carlos> necessarily the best. The best solution: get off qwest, go
Carlos> with a cable provider that uses a pass-through
The FVX538 has a DHCP server and it works okay, but the addressing
scheme is a random one. Uge! Is there any way to fix the IP
addresses and still assign them from the FVX 538? Can the FVX 538
support dynamic DNS updating so I can name the darn addresses
regardless of what they happen to be at
Denis Heidtmann wrote:
> Thanks for all the information and advice. Unfortunately, Carlos'
> comment about dsl modems applies in my situation: an Actiontec modem
> from Qwest.
I think you mentioned a while back you're with DSL Northwest. If this is
still true, then you're putting too much emphas
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Denis Heidtmann wrote:
> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:36:31 -0800
> From: Denis Heidtmann
> Reply-To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help;civil and on-topic"
>
> To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help, civil and on-topic"
>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG] resolve.c
>
>
> Why does the presence of "nameserver 192.168.0.1" in resolv.conf not
> break dns searches occasionally?
>
>
I can only theorize that the resolvconf program handles its contents
differently, if at all.
Should I attempt to clean up this file? If I should, how might that
> be done? Since a d
Thanks for all the information and advice. Unfortunately, Carlos'
comment about dsl modems applies in my situation: an Actiontec modem
from Qwest. So attempts to change its dhcp behavior will not bear
fruit. My use of resolvconf is a sensible solution to a
less-than-perfect state of affairs. Mi
> Of course these DSL
> modems are notoriously crappy, and it is quite possible that fiddling
> with its configuration will have no effect. That's why I use cable and
> my own linux box as a router/firewall. Cable modems do not contain
> router/firewalls; they simply pass the connection through.
>
Carlos Konstanski wrote:
> I hate to be a party pooper, but I still feel that using resolvconf
> and static IPs is a bandaid that will continue to peel off when
> wet. The right thing to do is to get your own DNS and DHCP servers
> (the ones on the DSL router) working properly. Of course these
Carlos Konstanski wrote:
> I hate to be a party pooper, but I still feel that using resolvconf
> and static IPs is a bandaid that will continue to peel off when
> wet. The right thing to do is to get your own DNS and DHCP servers
> (the ones on the DSL router) working properly. Of course these DSL
>
>
> As best as I can determine, everything is working fine. But I seek
> some understanding. The resolv.conf contains some entries which make
> no sense to me. The visiting geek is no longer interested in these
> questions, as it is no longer broken. So I appeal to you.
>
> resolv.conf:
>
> #
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Carlos Konstanski wrote:
> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:39:24 -0700 (MST)
> From: Carlos Konstanski
> Reply-To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help;civil and on-topic"
>
> To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help; civil and on-topic"
>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG]
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Denis Heidtmann wrote:
> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:10:59 -0800
> From: Denis Heidtmann
> Reply-To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help;civil and on-topic"
>
> To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help, civil and on-topic"
>
> Subject: [PLUG] resolve.conf
I mentioned earlier that I was having trouble with a new dsl modem's
behavior as a dns server. That has been resolved by avoiding dhcp.
This was accomplished with the help of a visiting geek (my son).
Resolveconf was installed; dns addresses set statically,
As best as I can determine, everything
I'm running ltsp 4.2 on CentOS 5.3. I am wondering if it supports the
mouse that comes with the Logitech MK700 keyboard/mouse combo? So far,
I haven't been able to get it working at all. I've tried modifying lts.conf,
but I'm not sure what to put in it.
-
20 matches
Mail list logo
