Naturally, right after I send the original message I got my program to run
on the school system by adding a return statement in my getnode function
(building a tree is the program). I still don't understand why it isn't
necessary at home and is at school, however...
Thanks and good night!
Becky
On Dec 17, Alain Toussaint conjectured:
> > Alas, tis an internal OEM with no documentation. It's an old USRobotics
> > Sportster 56K internal.
>
> i have an internal sportster 33.6 modem currently,would you like that i share
> my configurations files (but then,i dunno if they will apply direct
> Alas, tis an internal OEM with no documentation. It's an old USRobotics
> Sportster 56K internal.
i have an internal sportster 33.6 modem currently,would you like that i share
my configurations files (but then,i dunno if they will apply directly since
i'm on debian and you're using RH,but stil
On Dec 17, Jenn V. conjectured:
> Can you listen to the modem and watch the lights - do they
> change? Does the modem react at all to the initialisation
> string? Have you power cycled the modem a few times (leaving
> it off long enough for its ram to clear - twenty seconds
> should be enough
Lighthouse Keeper in the Desert Sun wrote:
>
> On Dec 15, Robert Kiesling conjectured:
>
> > I'm not sure about the masquerading because my systems are the proxy
> > server type. But I'm sure I could help config the ppp. Depends on
> > whether your using the standard /etc/ppp/ system-wide fi
On Dec 15, Robert Kiesling conjectured:
> I'm not sure about the masquerading because my systems are the proxy
> server type. But I'm sure I could help config the ppp. Depends on
> whether your using the standard /etc/ppp/ system-wide files or a
> wrapper like kppp.
I'm using the /etc/ppp stu
Lighthouse Keeper in the Desert Sun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 14, Robert Kiesling conjectured:
>
> > More likely, the video card was specified incorrectly, perhaps
> > from the start, and XFree86 didn't use any of the incompatible
> > features until it tried to use the higher res. Re
On Dec 14, Robert Kiesling conjectured:
> More likely, the video card was specified incorrectly, perhaps
> from the start, and XFree86 didn't use any of the incompatible
> features until it tried to use the higher res. Rechecking
> the hardware config and hand-editing the XF86Config file is
> m
Laurel Fan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Excerpts from linuxchix: 14-Dec-99 [techtalk] update by Lighthouse t. D.
> Sun@one
> > Any ideas as
On Dec 14, Laurel Fan conjectured:
> Excerpts from linuxchix: 14-Dec-99 [techtalk] update by Lighthouse t. D.
> Sun@one
> > Any ideas as to what would cause this?
>
> Possibly, X is trying to run at a higher resolution/colordepth/refresh
> rate than is possible with your m
Excerpts from linuxchix: 14-Dec-99 [techtalk] update by Lighthouse t. D.
Sun@one
> Any ideas as to what would cause this?
Possibly, X is trying to run at a higher resolution/colordepth/refresh
rate than is possible with your monitor and video card setup. You could
try editing your XF86Con
Okay, it was definitely a hack, but not an interesting one at all. What I
did was a full reinstall with reformat and everything, after tarring my
home directory on storing it on my bf;s Mac. I saved a few other
inportanat files that I didn't feel like recreating (rc.local and
rc.firewall come to
12 matches
Mail list logo
