DSL not recognizing the modem...what else is new?
in [Setup]
|
Prev: Did Debian's text console font change recently? How to get theold one back? -- It was Nouveau in Kernel 2.6.32-5!
Next: Fedora 13: Need help setting up dual monitors.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 7 Jun 2010 18:09 Peter wrote: > In article <RcGdnYj5S-_NCZHRnZ2dnUVZ8tGdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk>, > nigel.feltham(a)btinternet.com says... >> Peter wrote: >> >>> In article <6f185f76-27a3-4db0-8c21- >>> 106dd69b7130(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, raylopez88(a)gmail.com says... >>>> Stupid question #2: if I go with the D-Link, I just power it up, plug >>>> the speedtouch DSL modem into the "WAN" port as input, then ethernet >>>> cables from two of the four other ports to my two PCs' ethernet card >>>> ports, right? Then on bootup the PCs should both recognize the DSL >>>> modem, right? And both can independently surf the internet via the >>>> same DLS modem right? (with a performance penalty I assume for sharing >>>> the same bandwidth of course). >>>> >>> No, the router would replace the modem and connect directly to the phone >>> line. >> Not in this case as from the description it sounds like he has a cable modem >> (ADSL modems have phone connection labelled 'Line', cable modems have 'WAN' >> ports) which does need a separate ADSL modem/router connected to the WAN >> port to work this way (not forgetting to configure the router for >> user/password and other connection settings). >> > > Aah, well he did say it was a DSL modem. Guess he was wrong. > No guessing involved. It's a dead cert.
From: David Brown on 7 Jun 2010 19:12 RayLopez99 wrote: > On Jun 7, 11:57 pm, David Brown > <david.br...(a)hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote: >> We already knew you were masochistic in your determination to use such >> out-of-date equipment, but I didn't know you were so sadistic that you >> are trying to impose it on someone else. If this other person wants a >> usable computer, can't you or they just buy something from this century? >> Then you can install the latest Linux Mint and be finished before >> your dinner is out the oven. >> >> Old machines like the one you have /do/ have uses as firewalls or light >> file servers - but not as desktops. > > But keep in mind the target user is: > > 1) a cheapskate. She has a Pentium II (slightly older than 1997, but > not by much, and with more RAM, I think 512 MB) > The Pentium II came out in 1997, so it can't be much older than that! If you are sure about the 512 MB, then you can install a more complete distro that is much easier to use than the cut-down memory-limited distros you have been trying. I would recommend something like Lunbuntu as a Ubuntu variant with a light desktop, but you will probably find standard Ubuntu works fine as long as you turn off desktop effects (the effects look nice, but will be very slow on such a machine). You could also try the LXDE version of Linux Mint. The final version for Mint 9 is not out yet, but the release candidate is probably fine: <http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=60> Mint is like Ubuntu, but with a bit more pre-installed audio and video codecs, and a greener theme. Download the image and burn a CD, then try it out as a "live cd". You've got nothing to lose, and lots to gain. > 2) wants ONLY to surf the web. She keeps all her docs, etc online at > Google/Yahoo. > > So, for her, this setup is ideal. The only complication: she might not > want to get ADSL on her phone line (if I can talk her into gettting > Skype, to save money, she might though). So she presently wants a Keeping your documents and mail online and accessing them through dialup is just stupid. Assuming you are write about the 512 MB, then the machine will be powerful enough to run email programs and office programs (OpenOffice for a full office suite, or Abiword for something faster and lighter) locally. It will be /much/ faster than using Google docs on dialup. > dialup modem. There is an old external modem lying around my house > somewhere, so if I can find it, I'll be able to easily set up a dialup > modem from Damn Small LInux. Internal modems are tricker. That is, > if I cannot talk her into using ADSL. That is, assuming I get ADSL > working in Linux, which you and others claim is easy to do. i'll see > later tonight. > ADSL done right is easy - you have an ADSL firewall/router/modem with Ethernet output. I gather that's the sort of thing you have. Some ADSL modems are USB only, which are a little more awkward to get working. Other than that, the only difficulty with ADSL is if the ISP is silly enough to use PPoE or PPoA rather than a straight Ethernet connection. If that's the case, you need to log into your router's web-based configuration and enter the username and password from your ISP. The information you get from your ISP should tell you if you need this or not. Since you have your ADSL router working with windows, you either don't need such a setup or you have already configured it - but you might have to be aware of this when setting up a new ADSL modem. > Thanks for your help I suppose. If I can get Linux to work I might > reconsider all the harsh words I've spoken about it (and its users) > over the years. If. > > RL
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia on 7 Jun 2010 23:30 On Jun 7, 10:41 am, The Natural Philosopher <t...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Jun 7, 6:31 am, The Natural Philosopher <t...(a)invalid.invalid> > > wrote: > >> RayLopez99 wrote: > >>> On Jun 7, 9:40 am, Nigel Feltham <nigel.felt...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >>>> Peter wrote: > >>>>> In article <6f185f76-27a3-4db0-8c21- > >>>>> 106dd69b7...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, raylope...(a)gmail.com says... > >>>>>> Stupid question #2: if I go with the D-Link, I just power it up, plug > >>>>>> the speedtouch DSL modem into the "WAN" port as input, then ethernet > >>>>>> cables from two of the four other ports to my two PCs' ethernet card > >>>>>> ports, right? Then on bootup the PCs should both recognize the DSL > >>>>>> modem, right? And both can independently surf the internet via the > >>>>>> same DLS modem right? (with a performance penalty I assume for sharing > >>>>>> the same bandwidth of course). > >>>>> No, the router would replace the modem and connect directly to the phone > >>>>> line. > >>>> Not in this case as from the description it sounds like he has a cable modem > >>>> (ADSL modems have phone connection labelled 'Line', cable modems have 'WAN' > >>>> ports) which does need a separate ADSL modem/router connected to the WAN > >>>> port to work this way (not forgetting to configure the router for > >>>> user/password and other connection settings). > >>> Interesting observation. The D-Link router was given free by > >>> somebody--I did not buy it--and there's a chance that it's a cable > >>> modem router rather than ADSL router? In any event--at the moment-- > >>> it's a moot point since my one PC is running fine using the old ADSL > >>> Speedtouch router with the AsusTech switch. Now I will go buy a > >>> Ethernet card for the DamnSmallLinux Pentium II and see if it can > >>> reach the internet. > >> Not much of a power user are you? > > >> Cant tell the difference between dial up and ADSL or cable and ADSL..or > >> probably a router, modem or a combination of the above. > > >> Its luck for you that Windows was made for idiots. > > >> Stick to it. > > >> Its right up your street. > > > That part is not entirely Mr. Lopez's fault. The mishandling of the > > word "modem" for both DSL and ISDN and ordinary telephone modems, and > > the mislabeling of what are ADSL *GATEWAYS* as switches and routers, > > has led to some nightmarish confusion for anyone trying to sort out > > help requests.. > > however no one I know refers to cable or ADSL modems as 'dial up' > > I still don't know what he purports to have, he talks about DSL which to > my knowledge NEVER connected to a serial port, with COM1, etc, which to > my knowledge are totally inadequate speedwise to run a cable or DSL > modem even if they had compatible interfaces. > > His best bet would be either us a dial up modem, or a PCMCIA ethernet > card and a proper router/modem combo, > > If anything he says is true.. > > It is perfectly reasonable BTW to refer to an ADSL interface as a modem. > But not as a dial up modem. He went screwing around with the telephone port "modem" settings and connections, confused by the name "DSL modem". If he didn't pop up with the insults now and then, it would be more understandable and we'd be more tolerant of the mistake. And it is not an unheard of mistake: many "DSL modems" should actually be called "gateways", because of their sophisticated network features. So now he's, wisely, using a hardware "modem". Most "DSL modems" also support a built-in switch for local communications, NAT to provide a separate internal, nonroutable IP address or addresses and an externally routable and pingable IP address. That external IP address may also be non-routable: that prevents you from running public web servers and FTP servers without getting your ISP to connect NAT services from the outside world to your private machine. So pinging your machine inside your house can be awkward from outside: that's what addresses like 10.*, and 192.168.* are used for internally. Also note. The "Ethernet card" is a PCI card: I thought Mr. Lopez's machine was a laptop? In any case, "Linux 2.2" drivers are for the Linux 2.2 kernel. Linux is up to 2.6.33: Damn Small Linux should be well beyond the 2.2 kernel and the need for add-on drivers, unless the distribution is very old and small in order to be compatible with the hardware. If it's necessary, there should be a "Makefile" and/or compilation instructions to go with that source code file, and installation instructions as well. Read those first.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 8 Jun 2010 03:09 Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > Also note. The "Ethernet card" is a PCI card: I thought Mr. Lopez's > machine was a laptop? I think Mr Lopez machine is in fact fictional, and he's just playing the old 'Bullshit Baffles Brains' game. I think its a pathological condition. Ray is not the brightest bulb in the streetlamp, and he desperately wants to be, but if he can't, making fools of a lot of smarter people is at least a sop to his ego.
From: RayLopez99 on 8 Jun 2010 05:15
On Jun 8, 6:30 am, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > He went screwing around with the telephone port "modem" settings and > connections, confused by the name "DSL modem". No. You keep saying that, and I let you continue, but let me now set you straight. That's NOT what happened. YOU, not I, are confused. I said "modem for DSL" meaning "Damn Small Linux". Not ADSL. My bad. Then I explained how the Speedtouch ADSL modem may be a 'gateway' meaning perhaps a router. It's not actually clear what it is now, but it's a moot point since I have it working with a Asus switch downstream of it. > If it's necessary, there should be a "Makefile" and/or compilation > instructions to go with that source code file, and installation > instructions as well. Read those first. Your friends here are saying that this is unnecessary--just plug the card in. Do you disagree? Then it shows either you are wrong or your friends are wrong. RL |