Re: 4.4 BSD forever?
At 11:21 PM -0500 2000/1/8, Snuffles on Sonata wrote: > Some of us remember 4.1 and 4.2 as well. :-) Some of us remember 2.9BSD on a PDP 11/70 with two banks of 64KB RAM. ;-) And some of remember the day we saw a 15% performance increase on that machine, when one of the local hacker/admins installed a new kernel where the machine code (not assembly) had been hand-tuned. ;-) ;-) Of course, I'm sure that some of us remember much further back than that. Me, I can only go back so far as my freshman year of 1984. Also, this no longer has anything to do with -stable. This thread should either be killed or moved to -chat. -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy |o| Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, News & FTP Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: console disappears after reboot
[moved to -stable from -security] "Crist J. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Adam Laurie wrote, > > Crist J. Clark wrote: > > > > Anyway, to cut a long story short, I would prefer to simply do something > > > > in /etc/rc.local to force the console back to local kb/vga, or disable > > > > the serial console in the kernel itself... so my question is: what? Is > > > > there such a command/setting? > > > If a console has "died," you should [HUP init] > > Unfortunately not. I assume it only tries to refresh the serial console. > I don't think so. Is the getty(8) for the device (I assume ttyv0) still > in the ps(1) output? If it is, perhaps kill it. Either kill it dead > and SIGHUP init(8) to start the new one, or maybe some signal (a HUP?) > refreshes a getty. You're totally off the track. His problem is that the kernel (or the boot loader) decides that there is no built-in console and uses a serial console instead. This has nothing to do with init(8). I guess the right person to answer this kind of question would be Mike Smith or Daniel Sobral. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: parallel printer & nlpt0
Hello, I want to thanks people that answer me : Trond Endretol, Vivek Khera, Michel Talon and Gert-Jan Vons They proposed to me 2 solutions : 1. make a "lptcontrol -p" before using the printer, to configure the parallel port in poll mode. 2. modify the ppc entry in the kernel config file, and build a new kernel --- device ppc0at isa? port? flags 0x40 net irq 7 +++ device ppc0at isa? port? flags 0x40 tty irq 7 this 2 solutions work correctly with the lpt driver. best regards. -- David Berard wrote: ... > For example, if I try to print one of the postscript examples (tiger.ps) > from de ghostscript port (gs 5.50), I obtain more or less the picture, > but with some incorrect lines, and some garbages (cabalistic > characters), and sometime unattended formfeed. > > I think lpt0 (ex nlpt0 device) is the problem, because if I change in > the BIOS the mode of the parallel port (SPP, EPP 1.7, EPP 1.9, EPP+ECP), > I don't obtain the same results. > > I also try to play with the flags of ppc device in the kernel config > file, but with no luck. ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
portmap
Hello, I 've got it several times: portmap[16116]: connect from 195.31.252.2 to dump(): request from unauthorized host. It is harmless but annoying. Is there any way to prevent portman listening requests on a NIC, ip, etc. besides using hosts.allow? Thanks, Gawel To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: parallel printer & nlpt0
On 13-Jan-00 David Berard wrote: > 1. make a "lptcontrol -p" before using the printer, to configure the > parallel port in poll mode. > > 2. modify the ppc entry in the kernel config file, and build a new > kernel >--- device ppc0at isa? port? flags 0x40 net irq 7 >+++ device ppc0at isa? port? flags 0x40 tty irq 7 > > this 2 solutions work correctly with the lpt driver. Just for the sake of clarity is that both in combination or will either solution work alone ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: parallel printer & nlpt0
the 2 solutions are not bound. You can use one or the other. Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > > On 13-Jan-00 David Berard wrote: > > 1. make a "lptcontrol -p" before using the printer, to configure the > > parallel port in poll mode. > > > > 2. modify the ppc entry in the kernel config file, and build a new > > kernel > >--- device ppc0at isa? port? flags 0x40 net irq 7 > >+++ device ppc0at isa? port? flags 0x40 tty irq 7 > > > > this 2 solutions work correctly with the lpt driver. > > Just for the sake of clarity is that both in combination or will either > solution work alone ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: console disappears after reboot
> [moved to -stable from -security] > > "Crist J. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Adam Laurie wrote, > > > Crist J. Clark wrote: > > > > > Anyway, to cut a long story short, I would prefer to simply do something > > > > > in /etc/rc.local to force the console back to local kb/vga, or disable > > > > > the serial console in the kernel itself... so my question is: what? Is > > > > > there such a command/setting? > > > > If a console has "died," you should [HUP init] > > > Unfortunately not. I assume it only tries to refresh the serial console. > > I don't think so. Is the getty(8) for the device (I assume ttyv0) still > > in the ps(1) output? If it is, perhaps kill it. Either kill it dead > > and SIGHUP init(8) to start the new one, or maybe some signal (a HUP?) > > refreshes a getty. > > You're totally off the track. His problem is that the kernel (or the > boot loader) decides that there is no built-in console and uses a > serial console instead. This has nothing to do with init(8). I guess > the right person to answer this kind of question would be Mike Smith > or Daniel Sobral. I don't have any context for this, so it's a bit hard to be sure. The decision as to which console to use is normally made by boot2; it will use the video and keyboard BIOS unless: a) the -h flag is supplied in /boot.config b) the -P flag is supplied in /boot.config AND the BIOS has not set the 'extended keyboard present' flag. This decision can be overridden with a setting in /boot/loader.conf which can cause the loader to switch to another console, and it can be overridden again by flags set on an sio device. So in summary; there's nothing that will "decide there is no built-in console" unless you explicitly tell it to go look for itself. Anything that's causing the system to talk to a serial console is at the admin's request. At this point in time, there is no way to force a change of console once the system is up and running. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
IP Tunneling, is it possible?
I have 2 physicaly seperate segments of the same subnet that I need to connect logicaly. I have a FreeBSD gateway/firewall machine on both of the subnets conected to the corporate network. Specificaly, I have an existing network 170.85.106.* netmask 255.255.255.128 which connects to the corporate 170.85.113.* network this is then is routed to 170.85.109.* Now I have in my office some more machines that I need to set up for the 170.85.106 net. Is there a way to encapsulate packets on the 2 parts of the 170.85.105 network, and send them to the other part, where they would be unencapsulated? I think this is called IP Tunneling and Linux appears to support it, but I would rather not change the 2 gateway/firewall machines over to Linux, if I don't have to. I regert if you jave seen this request before, I have submited it on questions, and networking, but the only response I got was a flame about my typing. -- Stan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]404-996-6955 Factory Automation Systems Atlanta Ga. -- Look, look, see Windows 95. Buy, lemmings, buy! Pay no attention to that cliff ahead...Henry Spencer (c) 1998 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
