On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Erik Ohlin wrote:
> There is a team working on something called 'Broadcast for Linux'.
> http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/lug/broadcast/
> At Thursday, 11:41 AM 7/15/99, you wrote:
> > Reply to: RE: [netatalk-admins] how to send messages to
> > netatalk client
InformUser a
Vicki Brown wrote:
>
> I have a Linux (RedHat) system running netatalk for user home directories
> and two additional volumes: /homes itself, and another "folder".
> I want to be able to back this stuff up, and I don't want to lose anything.
> The backup machine is currently a G3 PowerMac running
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>OK. Logical. I can live with "cleartext" passwords. We're inside the
>firewall. Can this vary by user? If the user has a ~/.passwd file it's not
>clear going over the wire?
Not if you're using randnum.
Here's a simple explanation, which is not techncally accurate
Benjamin Lee wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Benjamin,
> > Modify your atalkd.conf so that it just has the interface (eth0) and
> > the zone, then restart atalk in etc/rc.d/init.d.
> hi,
> thanks for the input.
> unfortunately i've already tried this. it still comes up with
Dave Ritter wrote:
> Has anyone else experienced this slow down
> with new macs running OS 8.6 not OS9?
Only those of us with Asante cards, or the ones who have forced full duplex
on managed switches, or downloaded the duplexing extensions from Apple.
:-)
> Connecting via appletalk (by holding d
Andre Pang wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 11:53:31AM -, Andy Daws wrote:
>
> > Ok to be able to get NT using MacIP you can use a program from Cyan
> > .
> > [etc]
> > .
> > and preserve bandwidth.
> Sorry, let me re-state my intention: I'd like to get this NT-mounted
> AppleShare v
"Maroney, Patrick @ CSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes:
> re: ZIP Reply and Linux atalkd in non-routing mode- Does anyone have any
> experience with this?
> I posted details a while back on a significant headache due to this
> scenario. The bottom line in our case was that the Linux device was not
> > > I'm using pre-asun2.1.4-36a + papd-binary patch on a redhat 6.1 Linux
> > > server. Each time a Mac boots, regardless the model and the OS, it's
> > > getting the following message : "Your access to appletalk network has
> > > been interrupted", with the only choice of clicking on "Ok". And
Malcolm McLeary wrote:
> Guys,
> I have experienced the same issue on a Qube2 from Cobalt on occasions ...
Yup.
> the server vanishes from Chooser and AppleTalk clients are disconnected, but
> is accessible via IP.
> I have no idea what the OS
Linux, MIPS, using a tweaked version of Redhat 5.x
Darron Froese wrote:
> The general consensus there was that Quark files should not be saved/opened
> off of a network drive (Netatalk or AppleShare IP) - they pointed to an FAQ
> on the Quark List (which I couldn't find then or now).
Sorry, my fault. I never set up a web page for it. If you
searc
"Daniel E. Lautenschleger" wrote:
> Here's what's happening:
> I have one SGI box running IRIX and an Apple protocol service called
> "Xinet".
K-talk, K-Ashare, yup. Good stuff... strange routing setups, though.
> Let's call the machine BIOINFORMATICS. When my linux box shows up
> in a Mac choo
Brian Bennett wrote:
> ...I've
> added additional IP addresses to each of my computers in the 192.168.1.x
> range.
> To simplify: each computer has 1 ethernet card, and 2 IP Addresses.
> When I connect to netatlk through the chooser it connects to the external IP
> (ie, the one assigned by my ISP
Lewis Pennock wrote:
> We are just about an all Mac house, but we are considering a unix only
> server environment with Network Attached Storage (probably NetApp)
> because our web publishing and hosting side is going there anyway and
> we're already using Linux and Solaris for serving for web dev
David Blache wrote:
> Please excuse my ignorance. I'm a relative newbie.
> I've installed a non-RPM version of the netatalk 1.4b2+asun2.1.3-6 package
> on my redhat i386 box. I had to modify a couple MakeFiles to get it to
> compile correctly.
i386? Wow. That box is bound to have fairly low LAN
Patrik Schindler wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
>
> > i386? Wow. That box is bound to have fairly low LAN bandwidth, probably
> > an 8 bit network card
>
> So you want to tell us that a 386 isn't capable of getting a maximum of
> 256KB
John Grieg wrote:
>
> I am using Appleshare over IP, but printing the "old way" (choosing
> printers in the chooser)
> Is it faster to print with LPD (I have tried to set up this, but the
> printjobs just "disapper")
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From a Mac? No.
Why? Because the Mac LPD driver assu
"Derek J. Balling" wrote:
> > > install), and I've tried DAVE (from thursby.com) to try and transfer them
> > > that way (except DAVE bones the long filenames by transferring them as
> > > 01PULP~3.MP3, using the 8.3 filename instead of working with the long
> > > filename to create something usef
"Derek J. Balling" wrote:
> >So the files are never renamed, but the transferring OS has to read what it
> >_knows_ to be a filename. It doesn't invent anything, it just uses either
> >the file name, or the file comment. What you are talkng about is adding
> >a brand, spanking, new name, to replac
Tom Watson wrote:
> I've just put a netatalk system on a local Linux box and on the face
> of it, it looks OK. There is a "small" problem. When attempting to
> connect to the server from a client, I get an error -5013 (object not
> found) in response to the "get file directory params" packet.
>
Spatch wrote:
> Don't know if anyone would care, but here is a benchmark of network
> thruput using 10Base-T and 100Base-TX networks comparing a lot of things
> (read the how to read this document).
> 5) Compare Mac thruput to PC thruput. This is by the way, the least fair
> test
John Grieg wrote:
> Is there a mailing list covering what one can do with Linux in a desktop
> publishing situation.?
More than a few. All of them, however, are often quiet.
> Linux is great for automation, so much work can be saved here (?)
> Is anyone working with OPI servers on Linux?
Helios
Michael Harlow wrote:
>
> Is this list dead ? I usually receive about 5 to 10 messages a day. Since
> the 5th, (the ILoveYou virus start) there has been nothing received.
HAHahahha.
Well, The list _is_ alive, and there is active traffic. It may be getting
filtered by your admins for this (or
Harry Zink/Netatalk List wrote:
> A great many people have posted in the past how they are using netatalk
> servers in genuine production environments. This puzzles me, simply because,
> as much as I like netatalk, it still lacks one MAJOR feature which, in my
> opinion, renders it near unusable i
"S.Ecker" wrote:
> (slightly OT) What I want to know is what the
> commercial linux hardware/software resellers are using
> when they say they support Appletalk protocol for file
> sharing.
Depends on the vendor. Helios wrote their own, but most
vendors are using a bundled, or customised, version
Harry Zink/Netatalk List wrote:
> on 5/31/00 11:36, Ron Chmara at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, if your users are running the show, I suppose you should use whatever
> > they want you to use? :-)
> Yeah, I know, unlike most IT professionals, I actually make the dre
Er... so far, the options noted fail to run on the standard platform
for inexpensive *nix serving. Xinet refuses to support FreeBSD or
Linux ports.
Helios Ethershare, however, runs on Linux X86, so you don't
have to waste good money on Solaris if you don't want to.
http://www.helios.de/helios_S
John Grieg wrote:
> > We also have an ASIP 6.2 server. Not only does the client not lock up,
> >its faster. A 266Mhz G3 with ASIP 6.3, and standard SCSI is faster than
> >a dual PIII 600 linux/netAtalk server with onboard 2940UW and UW scsi
> >drives
> There has been some people telling that t
Harry Zink/Netatalk List wrote:
>
> on 7/12/00 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > No address with RAYTHEON/ESYS.COM is on the list.
>
> (Classic!)
>
> Could you please take the time to send a reply to this list, like countless
> others have done, and to discover th
Tom Fitzgerald wrote:
> > Hi, I am the systems administrator for my company and I have been trying to
> > find a way to shut down ftp access to our server. This would entail
> > finding an alternative file transfer protocol, such as some sort of GUI-scp
> > or a combination of netatalk and samba(
29 matches
Mail list logo
