Luis EG Ontanon wrote:
>On 8/12/07, Misc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Luis EG Ontanon wrote:
>> Not yet, but this will be minority. And with being able to bring
>>all one's personal soft on a usb stick, you can in fact have
>>multi-user computers where everyone is just using their own
>>portabl
Misc wrote:
> With computers becoming very cheap, we're at the stage where each
> "user" has his/her own computer.
Not necessarily in, say, a network lab.
___
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/li
On 8/12/07, Misc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luis EG Ontanon wrote:
> Not yet, but this will be minority. And with being able to bring all
> one's personal soft on a usb stick, you can in fact have multi-user
> computers where everyone is just using their own portable soft from
> their USB sticks.
Luis EG Ontanon wrote:
>> With computers becoming very cheap, we're at the stage where each
>> "user" has his/her own computer. Hence no need to share one machine
>> between several users (which usually results in a total mess, not
>> resolvable by different AppData folders anyway) :)
>
>Well, I w
Ulf Lamping wrote:
>>
>No, at least I'm talking about existing U3 Wireshark package here.
>Where did you found the word "portable"?
OK, but we ARE talking about U3 package, not the standard distro.
>> Or at least it's "supposed" to be portable, and being advertized as
>> designed for USB stic
> With computers becoming very cheap, we're at the stage where each
> "user" has his/her own computer. Hence no need to share one machine
> between several users (which usually results in a total mess, not
> resolvable by different AppData folders anyway) :)
Well, I work in an environment (Mobile
Misc schrieb:
> Guy Harris wrote:
>
>
>> Misc wrote:
>>
>>
>>> With truly portable application, you just put it somewhere and it
>>> works, with all its prior settings intact. That's what I need. I
>>> understand that I'd still have to correct the path in -P switch
>>> every time I move Wi
Ulf Lamping wrote:
>Some time ago, John T. Haller from that page asked for a portable
>version of Wireshark - exactly for that reason, I've introduced the
>-P option ;-)
So I have you to thank for this life-saver switch :)
>P.S: a portable version could also serve as the "zip only" Win32
>versi
Guy Harris wrote:
>...unless you have multiple users on the machine using the same
>application, in which case their settings are shared, whether they
>want that or not. (And, yes, that happens even with Windows.) It's
>not as if portable is all benefits and no costs
>
>(There's also the qu
Guy Harris wrote:
>Misc wrote:
>
>> With truly portable application, you just put it somewhere and it
>> works, with all its prior settings intact. That's what I need. I
>> understand that I'd still have to correct the path in -P switch
>>every time I move Wireshark to a different folder. So I gu
J P wrote:
> How do I post a message in reply to an existing thread using the HTML
> List Viewer?
To which "HTML List Viewer" are you referring?
If you are referring to the mail archives linked to from
http://www.wireshark.org/lists/
the answer, at least for the local archives, is "you
And, what if the directory is not writable by an user... (I personally
believe it should not be just to avoid single users messing with what
others have to use)
On 8/12/07, Guy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Misc wrote:
>
> > Regular (non-U3) portable applications:
> > 1. Do not write to Wind
Misc wrote:
> Regular (non-U3) portable applications:
> 1. Do not write to Windows Registry. That is a must.
Wireshark doesn't do that (although that's mainly a result of it having
been written as a UN*X application).
> 2. Do not write to system, AppData, and other folders outside of their
> ow
Guy Harris schrieb:
> Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>
>> No. For an U3 package, you'll need an U3 stick to work properly. The U3
>> system will set some special U3 environment variables and that's the
>> problem here.
>>
>
> So how are non-U3 portable applications produced for Windows? Are
> spe
Misc wrote:
> With truly portable application, you just put it somewhere and it
> works, with all its prior settings intact. That's what I need. I
> understand that I'd still have to correct the path in -P switch every
> time I move Wireshark to a different folder. So I guess it's not TRULY
> PORT
Guy Harris wrote:
>Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>> No. For an U3 package, you'll need an U3 stick to work properly.
>>The U3 system will set some special U3 environment variables and
>>that's the problem here.
>
>So how are non-U3 portable applications produced for Windows? Are
>special builds done, o
Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>You can use -P command line option to adjust the personal folders,
>see
>http://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsug_html_chunked/ChCustCommandLine.html
>
Thank you!!! I actually searched wireshark help guide (and Google, and
wireshark wiki, and a bunch of other palces) but couldn't
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> No. For an U3 package, you'll need an U3 stick to work properly. The U3
> system will set some special U3 environment variables and that's the
> problem here.
So how are non-U3 portable applications produced for Windows? Are
special builds done, or is the application othe
Misc schrieb:
> Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>> What does Help/About/Folders show?
>>
>> Regards, ULFL
>>
>
> "Personal configuration" and "Personal Plugins" point to AppData under
> User Profile (in Documents & Settings). And that is precisely what the
> problem is. How can I p
Ulf Lamping wrote:
>>
>>
>What does Help/About/Folders show?
>
>Regards, ULFL
"Personal configuration" and "Personal Plugins" point to AppData under
User Profile (in Documents & Settings). And that is precisely what the
problem is. How can I point it to my USB drive?
"Global Configuration" an
Stephen Fisher wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 05:34:04PM +0200, Franz Edler wrote:
>
>> is there any possibility to trace packets on loopback-interface of my
>> WindowsXP machine.
>
> See the "Windows" section at
> http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback
...and note that Windows doesn'
On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 05:34:04PM +0200, Franz Edler wrote:
> is there any possibility to trace packets on loopback-interface of my
> WindowsXP machine.
See the "Windows" section at
http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback
> On Linux e.g. I can trace on "any" interfaces, but this I canno
Hi,
is there any possibility to trace packets on loopback-interface of my
WindowsXP machine.
I want to trace IP packets sent from one application to the other (using
different ports).
On Linux e.g. I can trace on "any" interfaces, but this I cannot with
Wireshark on Windows XP, right?
-franz
__
23 matches
Mail list logo
