I was just thinking of how waiting for wifi to connect hangs my pis
booting. Times out at 1 minute 20 seconds or so. If the interface
was supposed to be connected to the router to be considered to be up
that could be a problem.
lo is loopback, 127.0.0.1, always points to the machine you're on.
W
On Sunday 24 September 2017 17:50:22 Alan Corey wrote:
> Try putting your static route in interfaces, in the eth0 section with
> an up, like
>
> iface eth0 inet static
> address 192.168.71.3/24
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> up route add default gw 192.168.71.1
>
> I think post-up might be
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:47:59PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings; Rock64, minimal stretch install.
>
> I'd like to auto-start xfce4 on a rock64. Its installed now but startx
> can't be found.
>
Same hardware and base system here.You might need to add a login manager
- I'll check :)
>
Try putting your static route in interfaces, in the eth0 section with
an up, like
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.71.3/24
netmask 255.255.255.0
up route add default gw 192.168.71.1
I think post-up might be too late, maybe there's a pre-up.
On 9/24/17, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On
On Sunday 24 September 2017 16:20:31 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> On 24/09/17 19:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>> I wouldn't put the manual route command in rc.local, I'd put it in
> >>> the network interface definition as in
> >>>
> >>> allow-hotplug eth0
> >>> iface eth0 inet static
> >>> address
On 24/09/17 19:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
I wouldn't put the manual route command in rc.local, I'd put it in
the network interface definition as in
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 172.27.200.5/24
post-up route add default gw 172.27.200.1 dev eth0 metric 0
pre-down rou
On Sunday 24 September 2017 14:08:25 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 24 September 2017 13:43:20 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> > On 24/09/17 16:30, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Sunday 24 September 2017 11:59:57 Alan Corey wrote:
> > >> But what's the purpose of having the gateway fields in interfaces
On Sunday 24 September 2017 13:43:20 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> On 24/09/17 16:30, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 24 September 2017 11:59:57 Alan Corey wrote:
> >> But what's the purpose of having the gateway fields in interfaces
> >> if not to to be reliant on the routing table?
> >>
> >> But
On 24/09/17 16:30, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 24 September 2017 11:59:57 Alan Corey wrote:
But what's the purpose of having the gateway fields in interfaces if
not to to be reliant on the routing table?
But it's worth a shot, something like
route add default gw 192.168.71.1
That was it!
On Sunday 24 September 2017 12:36:41 Alan Corey wrote:
> Try obconf from openbox, I have 4 workspaces on my hp laptop done with
> that. I think it's LXDE. They survive reboots for me.
>
This is on the pi? Humm, not found on it either. I'll need to install it?
Thanks Alan.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
On Sunday 24 September 2017 12:26:49 Alan Corey wrote:
> So this is on the rock64 or one of your pis? I thought the rock64 was
> too experimental to be able to use apt. Raspbian or Debian?
>
Once I had a network, apt on the rock64 runs fine. installed sd card
image is:
stretch-minimal-rock64-0
Greetings; Rock64, minimal stretch install.
I'd like to auto-start xfce4 on a rock64. Its installed now but startx
can't be found.
Also, I'm getting warnings as I install stuff because the locale isn't
set, how do I fix that on the arm64 version of stretch? I see
an /etc/locale.gen but while
Try obconf from openbox, I have 4 workspaces on my hp laptop done with
that. I think it's LXDE. They survive reboots for me.
On 9/24/17, Alan Corey wrote:
> So this is on the rock64 or one of your pis? I thought the rock64 was
> too experimental to be able to use apt. Raspbian or Debian?
>
>
So this is on the rock64 or one of your pis? I thought the rock64 was
too experimental to be able to use apt. Raspbian or Debian?
On 9/24/17, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 24 September 2017 11:59:57 Alan Corey wrote:
>
>> But what's the purpose of having the gateway fields in interfaces if
>>
On Sunday 24 September 2017 11:59:57 Alan Corey wrote:
> But what's the purpose of having the gateway fields in interfaces if
> not to to be reliant on the routing table?
>
> But it's worth a shot, something like
> route add default gw 192.168.71.1
That was it!
Now I've used apt to update 5 pack
But what's the purpose of having the gateway fields in interfaces if
not to to be reliant on the routing table?
But it's worth a shot, something like
route add default gw 192.168.71.1
It's simple enough to undo it with
route del default
to take it back out if it doesn't work.
I dunno, I haven't m
On Sunday 24 September 2017 07:39:34 Alan Corey wrote:
> There isn't some limit on number of machines that can connect coming
> from somewhere? Could be political/economic or technical. I see wifi
> routers advertised as only working with n clients.
>
I think its been found, but no clue how to fi
On Sunday 24 September 2017 04:34:50 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> On 23/09/17 20:00, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I'd suggest checking using traceroute -I and then looking at route
> -n and/or ip route ls which should give you a bit more of an
> indication of what's going on. IME this sort of thing i
There isn't some limit on number of machines that can connect coming from
somewhere? Could be political/economic or technical. I see wifi routers
advertised as only working with n clients.
Sent from my Motorola XT1505
On Sep 24, 2017 4:35 AM, "Mark Morgan Lloyd" <
markmll.debian-...@telemetry.co.
On 23/09/17 20:00, Gene Heskett wrote:
So my local network is working as expected. BUT:
root@rock64:/etc# ping -c1 yahoo.com
PING yahoo.com (98.138.253.109) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.71.2 (192.168.71.2) icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
Note that the dns request did resolve.
B
20 matches
Mail list logo
