Subject:       Re: Deserting Linux for BSD
Date:          Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:39:42 GMT
From:          Cyber Trekker <>
Organization: - Before you buy.
Newsgroups:    alt.os.linux.mandrake,

In article <>, wrote:

> That's not arrogance; it's, "Geez!  That question again?!?  It's
> answered in five other articles that I can see on this screen!  Geez!"

Sheesh! Actually, it is arrogance. Don't you humans even understand your
own languages?

Sent via
Before you buy.

Subject:       Re: Deserting Linux for BSD
Date:          Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:15:21 GMT
From:          Cyber Trekker <>
Organization: - Before you buy.
Newsgroups:    alt.os.linux.mandrake,

In article <>, wrote:

>  There is SO much documentation out there now compared to when I
>  was trying to figure out how to run Linux.  You guys just have to
>  fire up a browser and surf to any number of sites that list
>  howtos. Browsers didn't exist when I was doing it.
>  So many of today's posters are posting little more than noise
>  because they haven't even tried to find relevant documentation,
>  much less attempted to solve their own problem by themselves by
>  learning from said docs.

If one were to take that reasoning to its ultimate end, then one could
say that there's no need for schools and teachers, etc., as it's all out
there; there's no need for job training, as it's all out there. I could
go on and on. With this approach, I assure you, it's no wonder this
planet is so backward.

Also, one person's noise is another person's musical note. A lot of the
so-called noise is coming from those complaining about others asking
questions. If it troubles you so much, if it so disturbs your
psychological and emotional states, then don't read those postings. Take
that initiative yourself. Next time you ask a question, no matter what
the question is or where you may ask it, remember that you could have
done more research yourself.

It is, then, neither entirely one way or the other? Encouragement to do
one's own research is necessary, but so are the other approaches.
Encouragement to do one's own research needs to be imparted in the right
manner, not bombastically. Learning is not based upon only one way to do
a thing. And some people need more encouragement than others, for we are
not all the same.

Sent via
Before you buy.

Subject:       Re: Ethernet Debugging -- More Information
Date:          10 Nov 2000 16:30:29 GMT
From:          "Peter T. Breuer" <>
Organization:  U Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
Newsgroups:    alt.os.linux.mandrake

Mark Norton <> wrote:
: In article <8uguhn$ru0$>,
:   "Peter T. Breuer" <> wrote:
:> You can set the mask any way you like.

: As long as I'm willing for it to not work ;).  There should be a

It will have no effect, one way or the other.

: That's not correct, otherwise I would never have posted.  The gateway
: address that I put in the Windows setting does NOT work in Linux.  I

It works fine, but "you don't have a route to it" was your problem.

: don't know why, my guess is that Windows chooses to ignore the mask
: when routing datagrams to the gateway, while Linux checks the gateway
: address against the mask before deciding it can route.  The Linux

Well, that's what routing means. It must also be the case that windows
has a route to the gateway in place, or the packets wouldn't go to the
right interface. Whether it tells you it exists or not is another

:> But you don't want to talk to them, do you? So why do you have the
:> mask set so large?

: This is a good point.  Reducing the mask size might even improve
: performance (or at least ignore most of the traffic).  The only

It would.

: drawback that I can see is that the broadcast address is usually set to
: the upper end of the mask.  If @Home is expecting to use the broadcast
: address 01.FF then I won't get it (if it's important, I'm not sure why
: they'd want to broadcast me anyhow).  If I set my mask to FF.FF.FF.00

: This is not to say I can't manually override the broadcast address.

:> Your gateway is your gateway. You cannot change it. It's a physical
:> fact.

: As it turns out, the network admins of @Home were consistent.  I used
: the .1 machine in my mask area and pings began to work fine.

OK. Looks fine. It's probably a single router with many ports, one in
each subnet.

: I appreciate all the help.  Linux reminds me of the Chinese philosophy
: of lifelong continual self-improvement.  I'm a better Linux
: admin/operator than I was yesterday. :)

An interesting observation!