Re: can't see shared printers from clients o local network

On 3/30/23 04:47, Jeremy Ardley wrote: On 30/3/23 16:32, gene heskett wrote: Greetings all; hosts based local 192.158.xx.yy network. cups at localhost:631 on any buster machine sees my printers just fine, and the buster machines can print to them. Those machines running bullseye aren't all

Re: can't see shared printers from clients o local network

On 30/3/23 16:32, gene heskett wrote: Greetings all; hosts based local 192.158.xx.yy network. cups at localhost:631 on any buster machine sees my printers just fine, and the buster machines can print to them. Those machines running bullseye aren't allowed. can't see my printers unless I s

Re: Cannot get ssh access to the new Debian server on my local network

On 2023-01-13 15:01:48 -0600, David Wright wrote: > ssh -v -v -v Or shorter: ssh -vvv -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: Cannot get ssh access to the new Debian server on my local network

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:04:09PM -0600, Tom Browder wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 3:02 PM David Wright wrote: > > Sorry if my suggestion is too obvious, but how about > > ssh -v -v -v Obvious, but still spot-on :) > Thanks, David, I needed a splash of cold water [...] > Sorry for the wa

Re: Cannot get ssh access to the new Debian server on my local network

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 3:02 PM David Wright wrote: > Sorry if my suggestion is too obvious, but how about > ssh -v -v -v > and posting some output, rather than us playing guessing games. ... Thanks, David, I needed a splash of cold water. It turns out I had put my public keys on the new host i

Re: Cannot get ssh access to the new Debian server on my local network

Tom Browder wrote: > I have my new host working and ssh from it to the other local Debian host. > > BUT, I have not so far been able to ssh the other way from the old server > to the new one. Both servers have password access blocked (thanks for the > reminder from several folks in the other thre

Re: Cannot get ssh access to the new Debian server on my local network

On Fri 13 Jan 2023 at 14:35:04 (-0600), Tom Browder wrote: > I have my new host working and ssh from it to the other local Debian host. > > BUT, I have not so far been able to ssh the other way from the old server > to the new one. Both servers have password access blocked (thanks for the > remind

Cannot get ssh access to the new Debian server on my local network

I have my new host working and ssh from it to the other local Debian host. BUT, I have not so far been able to ssh the other way from the old server to the new one. Both servers have password access blocked (thanks for the reminder from several folks in the other thread about Internet access to my

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

rudu writes: > > To configure the printer, I first have to be able to ping it on the > local network, which every over computer can do. So all other peers on the LAN can get to the printer. > And they can print all right, so this desktop must have some network > misconfiguration

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

On 4/9/21, rudu wrote: > > To configure the printer, I first have to be able to ping it on the > local network, which every over computer can do. > And they can print all right, so this desktop must have some network > misconfiguration of some sort, I guess ... > It seems l

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

On 09.04.2021 21:37, deloptes wrote: Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: I don't see any reason why your computer could not ping the printer, since you can ping gateway IP and access the Internet from it. I suspect printer's IP address has changed somehow, or it is in powered off state (some printers

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

On Vi, 09 apr 21, 11:41:56, rudu wrote: > > I paste here a few commands I passed when remotely connected to the > problematic machine (sorry for the french locale). You can always prepend 'LANG=C.UTF-8' to get the output in English. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebian

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

On 2021-04-09 10:41, rudu wrote: Hi, First, I tried to understand why a single machine among others couldn't print on the local printer. So I tried to ping the printer and it failed. The machine could nevertheless surf the web with no problem ... I paste here a few commands I passed when remote

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: > I don't see any reason why your computer could not ping the printer, > since you can ping gateway IP and access the Internet from it. > I suspect printer's IP address has changed somehow, or it is in powered > off state (some printers can power off themselves, if th

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

first have to be able to ping it on the local network, which every over computer can do. Do you have remote access to another computer on the same local network to confirm that printer's IP address is "192.168.1.20", as you expect, and it responds to ping command from another compu

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

n the local network, which every over computer can do. And they can print all right, so this desktop must have some network misconfiguration of some sort, I guess ... It seems like trapped into a tunnel toward the gateway/router to get out, but can't shake hands with a pal next door. I first s

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 11:41:56AM +0200, rudu wrote: > Hi, > > First, I tried to understand why a single machine among others couldn't > print on the local printer. > So I tried to ping the printer and it failed. > The machine could nevertheless surf the web with no problem ... > > I paste here

Re: ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

On 09.04.2021 14:41, rudu wrote: Hi, First, I tried to understand why a single machine among others couldn't print on the local printer. So I tried to ping the printer and it failed. The machine could nevertheless surf the web with no problem ... I paste here a few commands I passed when remo

ping gateway ok, ping any other local network address fails

Hi, First, I tried to understand why a single machine among others couldn't print on the local printer. So I tried to ping the printer and it failed. The machine could nevertheless surf the web with no problem ... I paste here a few commands I passed when remotely connected to the problematic

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 23:47:59 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 07 February 2020 14:29:08 David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 11:24:46 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > > > I don't use fish that I know of. Thats not to say mc isn't using > > > it. In which case someone has be

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Sat 08 Feb 2020 at 10:38:19 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> > I'm not aware that there's a faster way of sending the files once > >> > you've unpacked the archive locally. After all, you've thrown away the > >> > benefits of compression and aggregation. > >> rsync? > > Sure, if you're updati

Re: local network capability scanner?

>> > I'm not aware that there's a faster way of sending the files once >> > you've unpacked the archive locally. After all, you've thrown away the >> > benefits of compression and aggregation. >> rsync? > Sure, if you're updating a tree. But AIUI the OP is transferring > a kernel source archive fro

Re: local network capability scanner?

just an ssh -Y connection, which may at times be supplemented as I also use an sshfs "mount", which works well as long as its user 1000 on both ends of the cable. Root access is disallowed going either way as part of my security model here. I've long since given up on ever keeping an nfs share

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Vi, 07 feb 20, 23:47:59, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > > > I don't use fish that I know of. Thats not to say mc isn't using > > > it. In which case someone has been playing with mc that has no clue > > > what they are doing. > > Because mc, 22+ years ago was pretty much self-contained. Now, AF

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 14:29:08 David Wright wrote: > On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 11:24:46 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Friday 07 February 2020 10:20:45 David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 08:12:18 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > I was trying different ways to move a kernel s

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 16:57:59 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I'm not aware that there's a faster way of sending the files once > > you've unpacked the archive locally. After all, you've thrown away the > > benefits of compression and aggregation. > > rsync? Sure, if you're updating a tree. B

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 18:49:20 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 07 February 2020 16:24:51 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > also claims to be a gigahertz capable switch. > > > > IIRC gigabit ethernet doesn't run at gigahertz frequencies. > > > > > But file moves to/from the machines in the gar

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 16:24:51 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > also claims to be a gigahertz capable switch. > > IIRC gigabit ethernet doesn't run at gigahertz frequencies. > > > But file moves to/from the machines in the garage seems to indicate > > theres a slow connection of around 10Mb/s somepl

Re: local network capability scanner?

> I'm not aware that there's a faster way of sending the files once > you've unpacked the archive locally. After all, you've thrown away the > benefits of compression and aggregation. rsync? Stefan

Re: local network capability scanner?

> also claims to be a gigahertz capable switch. IIRC gigabit ethernet doesn't run at gigahertz frequencies. > But file moves to/from the machines in the garage seems to indicate > theres a slow connection of around 10Mb/s someplace in that path. Is that really 10Mb/s (aka ~1MB/s)? Ste

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 11:24:46 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 07 February 2020 10:20:45 David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 08:12:18 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > I was trying different ways to move a kernel src to the pi for > > > making and also reached the conclusion

Re: local network capability scanner?

On 2020-02-07 16:24, Gene Heskett wrote: I don't use fish that I know of. Thats not to say mc isn't using it. In which case someone has been playing with mc that has no clue what they are doing. mick@slinky:~$ mc [connect shell link option] fish: Waiting for initial line... Enter passphrase

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Feb 07, 2020, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 07 February 2020 05:53:05 Dan Purgert wrote: >> [...] >> a "gigahertz" switch? neat :) (I think you meant gigabit again). > > Guilty. Blame it on oldtimers. Hehe, and I was busy scouring Amazon too... > [...] > Anyway, I found an answer, iperf

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 10:20:45 David Wright wrote: > On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 08:12:18 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > I was trying different ways to move a kernel src to the pi for > > making and also reached the conclusion that mc was for some reason > > terminally slow at unpacking an .xz ke

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 08:12:18 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > I was trying different ways to move a kernel src to the pi for making and > also reached the conclusion that mc was for some reason terminally slow > at unpacking an .xz kernel and writing the unpack across the network. It > was pr

Re: local network capability scanner?

Gene Heskett wrote: ... > So I stopped that, killed the partial copy, backed out and copied the > whole image to the pi in just 2 or 3 minutes, with mc, then unxz'd it on > the pi in maybe 3 minutes. Made sure it was set for arch/arm with a > bcm2835_defconfig, verified it said fully preemptibl

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 06:24:10 Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, at 07:04, Gene Heskett wrote: > > But file moves to/from the machines in the garage seems to indicate > > theres a slow connection of around 10Mb/s someplace in that path. > > Later you said: > > But on really big write

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, at 07:04, Gene Heskett wrote: > But file moves to/from the machines in the garage seems to indicate > theres a slow connection of around 10Mb/s someplace in that path. Later you said: > But on really big writes, the ssd's decay to around 17-20 mb/s. Surely here you meant MB/

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 05:53:05 Dan Purgert wrote: > On Feb 07, 2020, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Greetings all; > > > > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that > > claims to be a gigabit and managed. > > > > One of its ports is co

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Feb 07, 2020, Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that claims > to be a gigabit and managed. > > One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of another dumber > unmanaged 8 port switch that feed

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 03:55:32 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 07 feb 20, 03:12:08, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Which tells me its the poor prolonged write speeds of the ssd's that > > are the main contributors to the slow big files problem. Not much I > > can do about that. It is what it is. > >

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Vi, 07 feb 20, 03:12:08, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Which tells me its the poor prolonged write speeds of the ssd's that are > the main contributors to the slow big files problem. Not much I can do > about that. It is what it is. If you're into testing you could try transferring to/from RAM (e

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 02:44:11 john doe wrote: > On 2/7/2020 8:04 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Greetings all; > > > > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that > > claims to be a gigabit and managed. > > > > One of its por

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 02:17:59 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 07 feb 20, 02:04:17, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Greetings all; > > > > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that > > claims to be a gigabit and managed. > > > > One of

Re: local network capability scanner?

On 2/7/2020 8:04 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that claims > to be a gigabit and managed. > > One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of another dumber > unmanaged 8 port switch that feed

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Friday 07 February 2020 02:17:59 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 07 feb 20, 02:04:17, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Greetings all; > > > > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that > > claims to be a gigabit and managed. > > > > One of

Re: local network capability scanner?

On Vi, 07 feb 20, 02:04:17, Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that claims > to be a gigabit and managed. > > One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of another dumber > unmanaged 8 port

local network capability scanner?

Greetings all; My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that claims to be a gigabit and managed. One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of another dumber unmanaged 8 port switch that feeds the machines in the garage, and which also claims to be a gigahertz

Re: Problem with slow local network access

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 08:33 Tom Browder wrote: > Just recently I've noticed a tremendous slow down in my normal work flow > between two local hosts on my home wireless network. I use a Terminix app > on an iPad to ssh into my laptop running Debian 10 Buster. > Please disregard, I just found my

Problem with slow local network access

Just recently I've noticed a tremendous slow down in my normal work flow between two local hosts on my home wireless network. I use a Terminix app on an iPad to ssh into my laptop running Debian 10 Buster. With Terminix I get to an external server running Debian 9 quickly, but access to the intern

Re: Security in our local network

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Sven Arvidsson wrote: > On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 11:59 +0200, B. M. wrote: > > - I have no control over the router (firmware updates? security > > fixes? I assume it's > > "really cheap" ...) > > I would start right there. If you can't get firmware updates,

Re: Security in our local network

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:23:49AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:59 PM, B. M. wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > - Not really a debian problem, but I value the knowledge of you all :-) > > Well, these are common technical problems that many of us face, and > some/many of the strate

Re: Security in our local network

most useless, as others have pointed out. The "password" there is not a password, it's a non-protectable token intended to prove ID (human) or access rights (again, human). That's why you see the factory-set "password" printed on a label on the device itself. It&#x

Re: Security in our local network

If you have an old spare machine, you can experiment easily and at no cost by making it a dedicated router/firewall. A good choice is IPCop, which almost anyone can install and configure in less than an hour. RLH

Re: Security in our local network

On Sun, 2015-08-16 at 10:09 +0200, B. M. wrote: > The router has to be used to access the cable network. And it get's > updates, but I don't have any control about it (e.g. I don't even > know about updates or security holes; there's no information at all). > So what I should do is buying anothe

Re: Security in our local network

Quoting B. M. (b-m...@gmx.ch): > Le 15 août 2015 à 13:48, Sven Arvidsson a écrit : > > > On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 11:59 +0200, B. M. wrote: > >> - I have no control over the router (firmware updates? security > >> fixes? I assume it's > >> "really cheap" ...) > > > > I would start right there. If

Re: Security in our local network

Le 15 août 2015 à 17:05, Martin Skjöldebrand a écrit : > On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 11:59 +0200, B. M. wrote: >> - Configure apache to require SSL client authentication - not yet >> possible because the >> owncloud sync client doesn't support that yet >> > > If I'm not totally confused the default

Re: Security in our local network

Le 15 août 2015 à 13:48, Sven Arvidsson a écrit : > On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 11:59 +0200, B. M. wrote: >> - I have no control over the router (firmware updates? security >> fixes? I assume it's >> "really cheap" ...) > > I would start right there. If you can't get firmware updates, get rid > of it

Re: Security in our local network

Hi, On 08/15/2015 12:00 PM, B. M. wrote: > - WLAN: SSID hidden, strong password, but I can't really trust the router, > can I ? Hidden SSID probably just gives you a wrong sense of security. See here [1] for example. Cheers, Simon [1] http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/28653/debunking-myths-is-hi

Re: Security in our local network

On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 11:59 +0200, B. M. wrote: > - Configure apache to require SSL client authentication - not yet > possible because the > owncloud sync client doesn't support that yet > If I'm not totally confused the default setting for owncloud is the connect through https:, I certainly h

Re: Security in our local network

Another thing to keep an eye on is WPS, Wi-Fi Protected Setup. It's quite easy to crack to gain the password. An informed user will turn off that feature. Except that some routers lie, and remains vulnerable. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 6FAB5CD5 signature.asc Des

Re: Security in our local network

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 07:34:55 -0400 Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:20:35 +0100 > Joe wrote: > > > A two-NIC firewall machine between the router and the rest of the > > network (presumably your mail server is wired to the router, it's > > only clients that are wireless) will

Re: Security in our local network

On Sat, 2015-08-15 at 11:59 +0200, B. M. wrote: > - I have no control over the router (firmware updates? security > fixes? I assume it's > "really cheap" ...) I would start right there. If you can't get firmware updates, get rid of it and replace it. Preferably with something that runs OpenWRT o

Re: Security in our local network

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:20:35 +0100 Joe wrote: > A two-NIC firewall machine between the router and the rest of the > network (presumably your mail server is wired to the router, it's only > clients that are wireless) will do a lot to minimise any security > problems with the router, and give you d

Re: Security in our local network

es, synchronized per user > - I created a CA and (sub-) certificates for S/MIME as well as a > server certificate used for apache (owncloud, dovecot) > > Concerns: > - WLAN: SSID hidden, strong password, but I can't really trust the > router, can I ? > - Someone who ha

Security in our local network

ecot) Concerns: - WLAN: SSID hidden, strong password, but I can't really trust the router, can I ? - Someone who has access to our local network could get access to mails or files (owncloud) - I have no control over the router (firmware updates? security fixes? I assume it's "

Security in our local network

oncerns: - WLAN: SSID hidden, strong password, but I can't really trust the router, can I ? - Someone who has access to our local network could get access to mails or files (owncloud) - I have no control over the router (firmware updates? security fixes? I assume it's "really ch

Re: (D7) Xsane not seeing HPAIO on local network segment

d; > /etc/sane.d/dll.d/hplip exists, and contains the single entry: > hpaio > > The scanner has previously worked with Xsane across the local network but > from a different machine; until recently it was used regularly from our > earliest office server, running Xsane (0.997, I th

(D7) Xsane not seeing HPAIO on local network segment

the single entry: hpaio The scanner has previously worked with Xsane across the local network but from a different machine; until recently it was used regularly from our earliest office server, running Xsane (0.997, I think) under Etch (Debian 4). Sadly, that machine has expired and temporarily

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 10:21:17 +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 08:39:58PM BST, Camaleón wrote: >> > If it's not available through easy install system, e.g APT, then yes. >> >> Only Windows system lacks for a ssh client on a default install and >> this can be easily solved with o

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 08:39:58PM BST, Camaleón wrote: > > If it's not available through easy install system, e.g APT, then yes. > > Only Windows system lacks for a ssh client on a default install and this > can be easily solved with one of the mentioned programs that don't > require even inst

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:33:29 +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:12:20PM BST, Camaleón wrote: >> > Too many 3rd party software programs required, most of them don't >> > integrate with the rest of the system nicely or at all, e.g. >> > explorer, cmd.exe. >> >> "One" program is

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 05:12:20PM BST, Camaleón wrote: > > Too many 3rd party software programs required, most of them don't > > integrate with the rest of the system nicely or at all, e.g. explorer, > > cmd.exe. > > "One" program is "too many" for you? ;-) If it's not available through easy ins

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:01:46 +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:15:09PM BST, Camaleón wrote: >> SSH is still the winner, IMO: Solaris and linux include ssh client >> facilities and windows has WinSCP or FileZilla that allow SFTP >> connections. > > Too many 3rd party software

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:15:09PM BST, Camaleón wrote: > SSH is still the winner, IMO: Solaris and linux include ssh client > facilities and windows has WinSCP or FileZilla that allow SFTP > connections. Too many 3rd party software programs required, most of them don't integrate with the rest o

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 04:33:55AM BST, yudi v wrote: > Samba looks like the best option as I will be adding windows clients and a > solaris file server. You hadn't mentioned Windows previously. Had you provided that information at the beginning I would've suggested Samba as well. Regards, -- Ra

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:46:54PM BST, Arno Schuring wrote: > > SSH (Secure Shell) - you don't need security on home-only network. > That depends. If you're running a wireless setup, even with WPA2 > protection, I'd still advise security. Let's not get paranoid - firewall + RSN should be enough o

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 04:39:28PM BST, Claudius Hubig wrote: > >SSH (Secure Shell) - you don't need security on home-only network. > > That at least explains the millions of bots out there. Of course you > need security on a home-only network, even if it is not accessible > from the internet. And

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:33:55 +1000, yudi v wrote: > even for Linux-only systems, there really is no > >> satisfactory answer to the OP's question besides Samba/CIFS. >> >> > Samba looks like the best option as I will be adding windows clients and > a solaris file server. SSH is still the winner,

Re: Sharing files on a local network

even for Linux-only systems, there really is no > satisfactory answer to the OP's question besides Samba/CIFS. > > Samba looks like the best option as I will be adding windows clients and a solaris file server. -- Kind regards, Yudi

Re: Sharing files on a local network

Raf Czlonka (r...@linuxstuff.pl on 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100): > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:52:14PM BST, Harry Putnam wrote: > > I don't understand why a few people have passed over ssh as being > > overkill. > > SSH (Secure Shell) - you don't need security on home-only network. That depends. If you'

Re: Sharing files on a local network

Raf Czlonka wrote: >On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:52:14PM BST, Harry Putnam wrote: >> I don't understand why a few people have passed over ssh as being >> overkill. > >SSH (Secure Shell) - you don't need security on home-only network. That at least explains the millions of bots out there. Of course

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:27:46 +1000, yudi v wrote: > Both, samba and nfs can > >> be overkill for sharing a bunch of files and even harder to manage and >> setup. OTOH, SSH is just a matter of installing the corresponding >> package and that's all. > > >> SSH will not only help you to securely t

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:52:14PM BST, Harry Putnam wrote: > I don't understand why a few people have passed over ssh as being > overkill. SSH (Secure Shell) - you don't need security on home-only network. > Its easiest of all to setup. (well excepting the nautilus suggestion) IMHO, it's not -

Re: Sharing files on a local network

Both, samba and nfs can > be overkill for sharing a bunch of files and even harder to manage > and setup. OTOH, SSH is just a matter of installing the corresponding > package and that's all. > SSH will not only help you to securely transmit the files between the > two computers but will also he

Re: Sharing files on a local network

El 2011-10-23 a las 22:40 +1000, yudi v escribió: (sending back to the list) > Is Ubuntu using some sort of firewall preventing/rejecting/dropping > pingsover the local network? :-? > > Yes it was the firewall. Thanks Ah, great :-) > > Yes, for sharing files it is easier to

Re: Sharing files on a local network

Raf Czlonka writes: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:25:16AM BST, yudi v wrote: >> I have a Debian PC connected to the Internet via mobile broadband and I have >> this Internet connection shared with an ubuntu pc via Ethernet connection. >> Internet connection works fine. > > Let me recap: > > Intern

Re: Sharing files on a local network

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:25:16AM BST, yudi v wrote: > I have a Debian PC connected to the Internet via mobile broadband and I have > this Internet connection shared with an ubuntu pc via Ethernet connection. > Internet connection works fine. Let me recap: Internet over mobile <---> Debian PC <-

Re: Sharing files on a local network

ping the Ubuntu PC, how come? Is Ubuntu using some sort of firewall preventing/rejecting/dropping pings over the local network? :-? > I would like to share files between these two systems. From what I > understand my options are Samba, SSH and NFS. I only used SSH before and > it takes a

Sharing files on a local network

I have a Debian PC connected to the Internet via mobile broadband and I have this Internet connection shared with an ubuntu pc via Ethernet connection. Internet connection works fine. I can ping the Debian PC but cannot ping the Ubuntu PC, how come? I would like to share files between these two s

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

In <20100210084608.gu14...@think.homelan>, Andrei Popescu wrote: >On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> I don't know anything about these scripts. When do they run? Udev is a daemon, started fairly early in the boot process. It communicates with the kernel. It evaluates the rules

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:46:08AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM: > > > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote: [snip] > > I don't know anything about these scripts. When do they run? And

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM: > > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > > >> So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't > >> have > >> happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM: > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't have >> happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding? > > No, I'm saying that under normal circumstances it should

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Mon,08.Feb.10, 20:07:36, Frank Miles wrote: > I won't belabor this. > > Putting in a different NIC fixed things. No fuss, though interesting that it > (presumably udev) wanted to call it eth2. I can live with that. Of course it did, eth0 and eth1 were already taken ;) Regards, Andrei -- Of

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't have > happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding? No, I'm saying that under normal circumstances it should work. > It broke. I fixed it by manually editing the p

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

I won't belabor this. Putting in a different NIC fixed things. No fuss, though interesting that it (presumably udev) wanted to call it eth2. I can live with that. Thanks again, everyone! -Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsu

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/8/2010 2:29 PM: > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 01:15:43, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >>> Perhaps the kernel brings eth1 into existence by first establishing it as >>> eth0, then renaming it to eth1; then bringing the "real" eth0 into >>> existence. >> >> The above can happen when yo

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Mon,08.Feb.10, 01:15:43, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > Perhaps the kernel brings eth1 into existence by first establishing it as > > eth0, then renaming it to eth1; then bringing the "real" eth0 into > > existence. > > The above can happen when you add NICs to the system. I hate UDEV for this, >

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Frank Miles put forth on 2/8/2010 10:32 AM: > Thanks so much to Stan, Tom H, and Cameleon! > > It seems that the consensus is that it's a NIC problem. In case > it wasn't previously clear, the RealTek 8169 is part of the Gigabyte > motherboard. > > I thought that I'd escaped non-free-firmware he

  1   2   3   >