To,
The Team Debian-User,
debian-user@lists.debian.org,
Debian.org
My dear illustrious Team Leaders,
Good afternoon.
I had a serious but luckily temporary problem with my Wired internet
connection, losing internet via wired line, as I uninstalled wicd.
Debian Squeeze 9.11.0 Live ISO has lxde wh
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:44:55PM -0500, Thomas George wrote:
> Starting last month the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made
> atbootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I havefound
> to re-establish the connection is to turn the TP-Link AC1750 router off
On Wed 14 Feb 2018 at 18:44:55 -0500, Thomas George wrote:
> Starting last month the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made
> atbootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I havefound
> to re-establish the connection is to turn the TP-Link AC1750 router off and
&
Starting last month the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made
atbootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I
havefound to re-establish the connection is to turn the TP-Link AC1750
router off and on again.
The system is Debian Stretch.
The connection was just
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 02:08:10PM -0500, Thomas George wrote:
> Starting last week the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made at
> bootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I have found
> to re-establish the connection is to turn the router off and on again.
On Tue 30 Jan 2018 at 14:08:10 -0500, Thomas George wrote:
> Starting last week the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made at
> bootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I have found
> to re-establish the connection is to turn the router off and on again.
Starting last week the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made at
bootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I have
found to re-establish the connection is to turn the router off and on again.
The system is Debian Stretch. I run apt-get update and apt-get
dist-upgrade
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 tw
-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
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 advocating
-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 th
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 this
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 a
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
-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 fo
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 picky
> > > > about *not* bein
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 abou
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 polite to at least do
> > > his/he
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:
> > >
-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*
> > > bein
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 pur
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 t
-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:
[...]
>
-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 f
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 is
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
> procm
-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 th
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
-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 postfix
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 death numerous time
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 *
> nuisa
-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
> seve
-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 c
-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 *t
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 e
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.
Th
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 scolding someone on th
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
-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" h
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 LaserJet 2100TN in a wi
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 unde
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 corr
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 networ
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
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?
>
That's an easy one. An
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 tha
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 (192.168.100
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) inst
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 understan
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 wire
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
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 mea
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 that was a typo. I beli
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
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 printers's setup to mat
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.
>
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 spyware-ridden.
> > Stay away from anything made
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 how to do that with teln
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 anything remotely good even if
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 root
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):
> >
> > i
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
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 (a
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
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 mode
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.
>
> /To/ 0.0.0.0 ? AFAIK,
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 r
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 in
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
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 192.168.
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 Pa
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 67.
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 th
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.
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
> fol
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 troub
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
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 acce
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: 192.1
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.
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 is
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 computer
Appologies for taking so long to follow up on this thread,
life got busy.
* Brian [110630 07:11]:
> On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 21:09:18 -0700, John Magolske wrote:
> > And now the ethernet-challenged machine is not connecting
> > in the evening either [...]
>
> Can we discount the time of day factor?
On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 10:07:32 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> No.
Yes.
> "auto eth0" (or "allow-auto eth0") is brought up by "ifup -a" through
> "/etc/init.d/networking".
Fine.
> "allow-hotplug eth0" is brought up by "/lib/udev/net.agent" through
> "/lib/udev/rules.d/80-drivers.rules" in Squeeze and
>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 11:02:18 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
>>
>> By the way, it should be
>>
>> auto eth0
>>
>> in /etc/network/interfaces. "allow-hotplug" makes only sense, if the network
>> card is removable like, e.g., a pcmcia ethernet ada
On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 11:02:18 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> By the way, it should be
>
>auto eth0
>
> in /etc/network/interfaces. "allow-hotplug" makes only sense, if the network
> card is removable like, e.g., a pcmcia ethernet adapter.
No, it needn't be. Both run 'ifup eth0'. But the
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 21:09:18 -0700, John Magolske wrote:
> Thanks for the replies all. I feel the issue must have to do with how
> this particular ThinkPad is set up, as my other Debian laptop has
> no problem connecting via ethernet. And now the ethernet-challenged
> machine is not connecting i
By the way, it should be
auto eth0
in /etc/network/interfaces. "allow-hotplug" makes only sense, if the network
card is removable like, e.g., a pcmcia ethernet adapter.
Maybe, Scott Ferguson is right: the DHCP server "could" have just run out of
leases.
--
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.
--
T
Since the system don't uses /run right now, the link /etc/network/run is o.k.
This can not be the reason for your problem.
--
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.o
* Jörg-Volker Peetz [110629 06:25]:
> Please show the output of the following commands when ordered in the morning
> session:
>
> ls -lFa /etc/network /run
> df -k
% ls -lFa /etc/network/run
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 2011-05-09 08:31 /etc/network/run -> /dev/shm/network/
% df -k
Filesystem
Thanks for the replies all. I feel the issue must have to do with how
this particular ThinkPad is set up, as my other Debian laptop has
no problem connecting via ethernet. And now the ethernet-challenged
machine is not connecting in the evening either (well, this evening
anyhow...), only the wifi c
Hello,
Enno Gröper a écrit :
>
> Issuing
> tcpdump -i eth0 -s 0 -w
>
> before "ifup eth0"
will result in an error. tcpdump won't work if the interface is not UP.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@li
On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 22:03:30 -0700, John Magolske wrote:
> allow-hotplug eth0
> iface eth0 inet dhcp
This should bring up the interface and configure it when the machine is
booted.
> iface wlan0 inet dhcp
> pre-up wpa_supplicant -iwlan0 -Dwext -B -c /home/john/.wpa_supplicant.conf
>
Please show the output of the following commands when ordered in the morning
session:
ls -lFa /etc/network /run
df -k
Maybe the link /etc/network/run is broken.
--
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
brings up a net connection -- but not in the
>> morning for some reasontimes out with a "No DHCPOFFERS received"
>> message. Repeatedly. I've been trying this every day for over a week,
>> and like clockwork, morning = no connection, evening = connection.
>
ning for some reasontimes out with a "No DHCPOFFERS received"
> message. Repeatedly. I've been trying this every day for over a week,
> and like clockwork, morning = no connection, evening = connection.
>
> BUT, even though the ethernet connection doesn't work in t
age. Repeatedly. I've been trying this every day for over a week,
and like clockwork, morning = no connection, evening = connection.
BUT, even though the ethernet connection doesn't work in the mornings,
`ifup wlan0` will bring up a wireless connection in the morning just
fine. Thi
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:22:26 +0200, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> With the help coming from the present mailing list, I managed to connect
> my laptop with my old desktop PC via a cross ethernet cable, and to make
> them communicate via ping and transfer files using rsync.
(...)
Check that the compute
2010/9/4 Rodolfo Medina
>
> Today, strangely, on the laptop, instead of
>
> # ifconfig
> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:33:02:17
> inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe33:217/64 Scope:Link
> UP BROA
With the help coming from the present mailing list, I managed to connect my
laptop with my old desktop PC via a cross ethernet cable, and to make them
communicate via ping and transfer files using rsync.
Today, strangely, on the laptop, instead of
# ifconfig
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
