Re: ubuntu-users Digest, Vol 76, Issue 173
- From: zaheer abbas <abbas.ubuntu@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:05:56 -0800
use sudo are su root and try pinging to other computer
thanks,
Abbas
On 12/26/10, ubuntu-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<ubuntu-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Send ubuntu-users mailing list submissions to
ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ubuntu-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
ubuntu-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ubuntu-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu (Cybe R. Wizard)
2. Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu (Goh Lip)
3. Re: Network problems (Bill Stanley)
4. Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu (Goh Lip)
5. Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu (Billie Walsh)
6. Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu (Goh Lip)
7. Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu (Robert Holtzman)
8. Re: Network problems (Lucio M Nicolosi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 21:10:52 -0600
From: "Cybe R. Wizard" <cyber_wizard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu
To: ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <20101226211052.4db5b059@WizardsTower>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:07:42 +0800
"Goh Lip" <g.lip@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 07:56:43 +0800, Avi Greenbury;-] that's quite a lot of quite fun fun to have over one
<avismailinglistaccount@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- I included the
'quite' to temper pedants such as us[0]
Since this thread has quite (somewhat) gone OT, I am quite (very)
sure you guys wont' mind, I've find the word 'quite' quite (rather)
confusing. As a non-native english speaker, there are words with
multiple meanings, or double entendres, which is quite (very)
alright; but to have a word with contradictory meanings is quite
(somewhat) unacceptable, because I'll have to guess in which context
it was intended for. (Never end sentence with preposition? -
then .....intended for, guys. :) and "Never start a sentence with
'never'?" ha ha ha)
Regards - Goh Lip
ps: I confess I'm having loads of fun with the english language,
perhaps at quite (guess!) the same level as you guys with the english
signs displayed at non-english speaking countries. But as usual, just
quite good natured ribbing; nothing serious to take offense with, I
hope. ('I hope' added in so as not to end the sentence with 'with')
And Merry Christmas! (over? how was I to know?)
quiet little typo.
quite != quiet, no matter what anyone/everyone may say.
But have your fun; it's ..quite fun!
Cybe R. Wizard -and quiet fun, too!
--
In a world full of audio visual marvels, may words matter to you and be
full of magic.
Godfrey Smith
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:01:35 +0800
From: Goh Lip <g.lip@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu
To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions"
<ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <4D180F9F.6000203@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On Monday 27,December,2010 11:10 AM, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
Cybe R. Wizard -and quiet fun, too!
Quite!
Regards, take care - Goh Lip
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:05:52 -0500
From: Bill Stanley <bstanle@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Network problems
To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions"
<ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <4D1810A0.6080505@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 12/26/2010 06:48 PM, Lucio M Nicolosi wrote:
On 12/26/2010 07:15 PM, Bill Stanley wrote:
The ping problem:
When I use computer two to ping computer one I get some strange results.
If I specify computer one using its ip address (192.168.1.100) I fet a
ping back with an average time of 0.27 ms. If I specify the computers
name (aragorn), sending a ping yields a time of 35.66 ms, It's
suprising that it would be this much slower. Maybe if I specify the
name, it is actually pinging some other computer (computer one has a
common name). Sending a ping from computer one to computer two yields
nothing both for the ip-address (192.168.1.101) and the computers name.
The file sharing:
I can't get a usable connection, On looking at the /etc/samba log files
I can see that there is some indication that a connection was attempted
but the attempt failed. On both computers, the documents folder is
shared but the shares-admin program allows only sharing via Unix-nfsm,
there ore no other choices even though there should samba listed (I
think). Frankly, I don't think shares-admin is very good.
Using the Places/network desktop menu item on computer one the following
are the results.
1. When I attempt to open a Windows network connection (NFS unix is not
one of the choices)
2. When I open the windows network icon, I see nothing. This is
interesting because yesterday, I could see the name of my home network.
In this respect, I have taken a step backwards, I used to get an error
message saying that the shares list was not sent. The same situation is
seen when I try to use computer rwo to connect to computer one.
I hesitate to add the ancient (12 years old) computer to the mix. Both
computers dual boot and I can boot on computer one to Windows 7,
Open-Suse or Unbuntu, I almost exclusively use Unbuntu and I keep Win7
around just because it came pre-installed with it. Computer two can
boot to Windows XP (Service pack 2) or Unbuntu. I might try to
establish a network connection when computer two is booted to Win-XP.
If I can get a connection,I can at least rule out hardware problems.
What does it happen when you ping an external address with computer 2,
both IP and Hostname, say www."someplace".com
(http://www.hcidata.info/host2ip.cgi may help you to do this)? Would you
observe the same latency discrepancies?
Why hesitate? It would be nice to check the behavior of this "ancient"
computer regarding pings.
Wouldn't you have a spare lan board to test with the faulty PC?
It is interesting that you mention that! Using computer two (the one
that doesn't respond to a ping) I can get a response to a ping from
computer one when I use the ip number (By the way, I am aware of the
fact that its ip number, 192.168.1.100, is an internal ip number only).
Now when I tried pinging using its host-name I got an external
computer. Where this computer is I do not know but from its ip number
is external to my home network. I could have to come up with unique
host-names but I don't want to complicate matters more than they now are.
I also booted computer two to Windowx XP. I can ping both ways when
booted to Windows but I am still unable to establish a network
connection. This proves that the ping problem is not hardware related.
Maybe I can't ping using the host-name is because I am not running
host-name server software? I doubt it and for security reasons, I would
prefer that my computer host-names not be known outside of my home
network. (That is why I refer to them as computers one and two.)
I think I might have to try the ancient computer... It can dual boot
Windows 2000 or Suse Linux. As for the Lan board, I do not have one of
those. I might mention that I can run WireShark (a network snoop) but
am not experienced enough with it to make too much sense of the output.
I can make sense of some of the output however. If anyone out there
knows how to use it properly in this context, I would appreciate any
advice on its use. I think that it might prove useful particularly if
the third (ancient) computer is running it to look at the communication
attempts between computers one and two.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:11:33 +0800
From: Goh Lip <g.lip@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu
To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions"
<ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <4D1811F5.6020600@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On Monday 27,December,2010 10:07 AM, Goh Lip wrote:
he same level as you guys with the english signs
displayed at non-english speaking countries.
Once, I was at a signage (no plural?) shop and the girl there was
preparing a sign with "Motocycles Parking". I told her it should be
"Motocycle Parking". She asked, "What? Only parking for ONE
motorcycle?" I guess her logic is quite irrefutable or english grammar,
inexplicable.
Regards - Goh Lip
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:14:28 -0600
From: Billie Walsh <bilwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu
To: ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <4D1812A4.7080803@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 12/26/2010 08:07 PM, Goh Lip wrote:
Since this thread has quite (somewhat) gone OT, I am quite (very) sure you
guys wont' mind, I've find the word 'quite' quite (rather) confusing. As a
non-native english speaker, there are words with multiple meanings, or
double entendres, which is quite (very) alright; but to have a word with
contradictory meanings is quite (somewhat) unacceptable, because I'll have
to guess in which context it was intended for. (Never end sentence with
preposition? - then .....intended for, guys.:) and "Never start a
sentence with 'never'?" ha ha ha)
Regards - Goh Lip
There is no such thing as "English Language". Only the hundreds of forms
of speech spoken by "english speaking people" around the world.
"English" is a polyglot.
--
"A good moral character is the first essential in a man." George Washington
_ _... ..._ _
_._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:24:12 +0800
From: Goh Lip <g.lip@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu
To: bilwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx, "Ubuntu user technical support, not for
general discussions" <ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <4D1814EC.2090601@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On Monday 27,December,2010 12:14 PM, Billie Walsh wrote:
There is no such thing as "English Language". Only the hundreds of forms
of speech spoken by "english speaking people" around the world.
"English" is a polyglot.
Yo, right on, my good man. I shall not refudiate you.
Regards - Goh Lip
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:09:23 -0700
From: Robert Holtzman <holtzm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Interesting read about the future of Ubuntu
To: ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <20101227050923.GB16914@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 07:38:33PM +0000, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Robert Holtzman wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 05:41:53PM +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 26/12/2010 07:05, Robert Holtzman wrote:.Leadership is one thing. Autocracy is another.
So far, Autocracy appears to be the 'better' option :)
In terms of what?
Mark's 'autocracy' is quite unuique amongst distributions, and Ubuntu
(as a distribution aimimg for market share) is pretty high among the
most popular distributions
If "better" is to be measured in terms of popularity, we all know what
would win.....and it sure ain't a linux distro. That doesn't make it
better in any way that matters to me.
- anyone not wanting to be involved in an
autocratically-lead distro would surely find themselves involved in a
more *cratic one, depending on their preference?
Example?
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20101226/c9e999c7/attachment-0001.pgp
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 04:18:16 -0200
From: Lucio M Nicolosi <lmnicolosi@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Network problems
To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions"
<ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <4D182FA8.9000707@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 12/27/2010 02:05 AM, Bill Stanley wrote:
It is interesting that you mention that! Using computer two (the one
that doesn't respond to a ping) I can get a response to a ping from
computer one when I use the ip number (By the way, I am aware of the
fact that its ip number, 192.168.1.100, is an internal ip number only).
Now when I tried pinging using its host-name I got an external
computer. Where this computer is I do not know but from its ip number
is external to my home network. I could have to come up with unique
host-names but I don't want to complicate matters more than they now are.
I also booted computer two to Windowx XP. I can ping both ways when
booted to Windows but I am still unable to establish a network
connection. This proves that the ping problem is not hardware related.
Maybe I can't ping using the host-name is because I am not running
host-name server software? I doubt it and for security reasons, I would
prefer that my computer host-names not be known outside of my home
network. (That is why I refer to them as computers one and two.)
I think I might have to try the ancient computer... It can dual boot
Windows 2000 or Suse Linux. As for the Lan board, I do not have one of
those. I might mention that I can run WireShark (a network snoop) but
am not experienced enough with it to make too much sense of the output.
I can make sense of some of the output however. If anyone out there
knows how to use it properly in this context, I would appreciate any
advice on its use. I think that it might prove useful particularly if
the third (ancient) computer is running it to look at the communication
attempts between computers one and two.
Your DNS server is routing your traffic to an external domain when you
ping this hostname. Perhaps you should change its name.
You should update the /etc/hosts files, IP and hostname, on each
computer in your LAN. In Windows, look for the file "hosts".
I believe that unless you can fix this ping problem, any attempt to
configure file sharing may turn out to be futile, (however...)
Have you tried to ssh across these workstations? You will need to "sudo
aptitude install ssh" on each one and check if the port number 22 on the
receiving end is open (or the firewall is off), and then run, for
instance, "ssh 192.168.1.100" from the terminal. If successful, it will
mean that whatever the ping problem origin is, communication is feasible
(but I would be very surprised if it works).
--
L M Nicolosi, Eng.
Linux Regist. User #481505 - http://counter.li.org/
------------------------------
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
End of ubuntu-users Digest, Vol 76, Issue 173
*********************************************
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ubuntu-users Digest, Vol 76, Issue 173
- From: Ric Moore
- Re: ubuntu-users Digest, Vol 76, Issue 173
- Prev by Date: Re: Network problems
- Next by Date: Unallocated Space
- Previous by thread: what process is sending this packet?
- Next by thread: Re: ubuntu-users Digest, Vol 76, Issue 173
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
