27 May
2002
27 May
'02
9:31 a.m.
Hi,
This is a question about an older linux..
I am running redhat 5, on an IBM755c (486)
OH perhaps my laptop is old enough... : ^ )
Anyway I have to enter the following lines every time I reboot:
modprobe ne io=0x300
dhcpcd
ifconfig eth0 up
so networking is ready...
my question, Anybody know the --proper-- place to put these 3 lines?
I could just put them in local.rc and be done wid um, but that wouldn't be
the --proper-- place to put them.
Thanks! : ^ )
27 May
27 May
10:11 a.m.
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Ron Hudson wrote:
Anyway I have to enter the following lines every time
I reboot:
modprobe ne io=0x300
dhcpcd
ifconfig eth0 up
so networking is ready...
my question, Anybody know the --proper-- place to put these 3 lines?
I could just put them in local.rc and be done wid um, but that wouldn't be
the --proper-- place to put them.
??? If it works, it's the right place. :)
I don't actually remember where the ifconfig/dhcpcd script went, but
IIRC /etc/conf.modules would work for:
alias eth0 ne
options ne io=0x300
and II-also-RC, with the module loaded, "netconfig" (or "setup")
should
allow you to dictate DHCP for eth0.
I reserve the right to be sadly mistaken, your mileage may vary,
yadda-yadda.
Doc
4:41 p.m.
On Monday 27 May 2002 03:11 pm, you wrote:
I don't actually remember where the
ifconfig/dhcpcd script went, but
IIRC /etc/conf.modules would work for:
alias eth0 ne
options ne io=0x300
Doc
Thanks for that bit of the puzzle, Doc, Those exact lines are in that file.
So I am removing the modprobe (comment)..
5:07 p.m.
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Ron Hudson wrote:
On Monday 27 May 2002 03:11 pm, you wrote:
Heh. So I really do have a couple of cells still firing. Glad to
help.
Does netconfig exist in v5? I really didn't use RedHat much till
version 7, when "they" made me certify.... When 5 was current I was a
confirmed Slacker.
Doc
I don't actually remember where the
ifconfig/dhcpcd script went, but
IIRC /etc/conf.modules would work for:
alias eth0 ne
options ne io=0x300
Doc
Thanks for that bit of the puzzle, Doc, Those exact lines are in that file.
8:19 p.m.
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Doc wrote:
Does netconfig exist in v5? I really didn't use
RedHat much till
version 7, when "they" made me certify.... When 5 was current I was a
confirmed Slacker.
It does. Up till RH 5.0 I rolled my own dist (lack of time now...), since
slackware didn't (do they now?) stay current with software updates.
-Toth
8:38 p.m.
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Tothwolf wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Doc wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not so you'd notice. I gave up on Slackware right after v4.0 came
out. Tried SuSE, Turbo, and RH6.2, settled finally on Debian unstable.
I do like RedHat 7.x, for the most part. It has some really ugly
warts, but they're easily fixed, if you know they exist. But
Debian's apt-get just rules.
Doc
Does netconfig exist in v5? I really didn't
use RedHat much till
version 7, when "they" made me certify.... When 5 was current I was a
confirmed Slacker.
It does. Up till RH 5.0 I rolled my own dist (lack of time now...), since
slackware didn't (do they now?) stay current with software updates.
28 May
28 May
2:48 a.m.
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 01:38 am, you wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Tothwolf wrote:
And everyone seems to be compling for i586 these days, that's why I am
using an old version.
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Doc wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not so you'd notice. I gave up on Slackware right after v4.0 came
out. Tried SuSE, Turbo, and RH6.2, settled finally on Debian unstable.
I do like RedHat 7.x, for the most part. It has some really ugly
warts, but they're easily fixed, if you know they exist. But
Debian's apt-get just rules.
Doc Does netconfig exist in v5? I really didn't
use RedHat much till
version 7, when "they" made me certify.... When 5 was current I was a
confirmed Slacker.
It does. Up till RH 5.0 I rolled my own dist (lack of time now...), since
slackware didn't (do they now?) stay current with software updates. 
4:43 a.m.
Not so you'd notice. I gave up on Slackware
right after v4.0 came
out. Tried SuSE, Turbo, and RH6.2, settled finally on Debian unstable.
I do like RedHat 7.x, for the most part. It has some really ugly
warts, but they're easily fixed, if you know they exist. But
Debian's apt-get just rules.
Seems to me that RC1 of the latest Slackware release (8.1?) was announced
last week. The last couple systems I setup I used SuSE, really wish I
still had time to just roll my own. Every Linux distro now seems to be
horribly bloated, and have security problems (OK, they're getting "better"
with the security problems).
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
5:03 a.m.
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Seems to me that RC1 of the latest Slackware release
(8.1?) was announced
last week. The last couple systems I setup I used SuSE, really wish I
still had time to just roll my own. Every Linux distro now seems to be
horribly bloated, and have security problems (OK, they're getting "better"
with the security problems).
Heh. SuSE has always been The King of Bloat. As far as new releases
go, I've heard nothing but horror stories about SuSE v8.0. By all
accounts, it's a big step _down_ from v7.3.
The local LUGgers are really liking gentoo linux. Source-based system
that seems to be very lean. I haven't tried it, but I'm guessing that
it's not for the bandwidth-impaired. You can pick the level of
instability - how close you want to be to the bloody edge. At the safe
levels it's said to be very stable.
I continually hear comments about the Linux security issues, generally
from MSCEs.... Granted a default Linux install is a
wide-open door, but
would you put a freshly-installed AIX box on the 'net? Or
Solaris, or
any of the major Unices, or Win2k Server or XP? RH 7x isn't bad, Debian
is pretty good out of the box. A little time & savvy will harden most
any Linux to a reasonably safe state.
Doc
29 May
29 May
6:55 a.m.
Doc said:
Eh, Slackware seems to do OK... they have new releases with modern SW pretty
often. Of course, I think upgrading stuff is much less trivial then on most
other distros, but I never really care because I just use the distro as a
starting point and then install stuff myself from source whenever I want to
upgrade. For that mode of operation, slackware is clearly the best (IMHO)
because it doesn't have any wanky package management that you can break by
installing something from source instead of f***ing RPM.
And if you're really looking for a secure-out-of-the box OS, don't touch linux
with a 10 ft. pole...just install openbsd :)
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
It does. Up
till RH 5.0 I rolled my own dist (lack of time now...), since
slackware didn't (do they now?) stay current with software updates.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not so you'd notice. I gave up on Slackware right after v4.0 came
out. Tried SuSE, Turbo, and RH6.2, settled finally on Debian unstable. 
11:22 a.m.
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Dan Wright wrote:
Doc said:
Eh, Slackware seems to do OK... they have new releases with modern SW pretty
often. Of course, I think upgrading stuff is much less trivial then on most
other distros, but I never really care because I just use the distro as a
starting point and then install stuff myself from source whenever I want to
upgrade. For that mode of operation, slackware is clearly the best (IMHO)
because it doesn't have any wanky package management that you can break by
installing something from source instead of f***ing RPM.
And if you're really looking for a secure-out-of-the box OS, don't touch linux
with a 10 ft. pole...just install openbsd :)
- Dan Wright
In regards to OpenBSD they now also have a vax port, that works quite
well, well works well for me on my 3100/80.
In the case of security, I have come to think that openBSD is the only
free unix that is secure out of the box, but with proper looking after
redhat and the other linuxes, as well as comercial unixes (cough IRIX
cough) can all be made secure with only a little bit of work.
though it doesn't realy matter as much if the machine is behind a firewall
and you are the only one using it...
Benjamin
It does.
Up till RH 5.0 I rolled my own dist (lack of time now...), since
slackware didn't (do they now?) stay current with software updates.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not so you'd notice. I gave up on Slackware right after v4.0 came
out. Tried SuSE, Turbo, and RH6.2, settled finally on Debian unstable. 
8:48 p.m.
On Thursday 30 May 2002 00:22 am, cvisors(a)carnagevisors.net wrote:
In the case of security, I have come to think that
openBSD is the only
free unix that is secure out of the box, but with proper looking after
redhat and the other linuxes, as well as comercial unixes (cough IRIX
cough) can all be made secure with only a little bit of work.
Some work. However, OpenBSD goes through code audits all the time - it's
often been the case then when Yet Another Vulnerability came up on
Bugtraq, OpenBSD had it fixed about 6 months previously :-)
ObCC: Out of interest, how many people here are running OpenBSD on VAX? Is
there anything to beware of (I'd network boot it), more so that using
NetBSD/VAX (which I have been using successfully)?
Dan
--
"Now is the time for all good men to come to."
-- Walt Kelly
30 May
30 May
6:51 p.m.
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Dan Kolb wrote:
On Thursday 30 May 2002 00:22 am,
cvisors(a)carnagevisors.net wrote:
I am running it on my 3100/80, no real problems I could think of, though
it took ages to generate an ssh key, so the first boot took a little
while.
Other than that, it comes with more software than say NetBSD (nothing that
I never compiled anyway).
Also one thing though I cant remember 100% is that the net boot
procedure may be a little differnt.
Benjamin
In the case of security, I have come to think
that openBSD is the only
free unix that is secure out of the box, but with proper looking after
redhat and the other linuxes, as well as comercial unixes (cough IRIX
cough) can all be made secure with only a little bit of work.
Some work. However, OpenBSD goes through code audits all the time - it's
often been the case then when Yet Another Vulnerability came up on
Bugtraq, OpenBSD had it fixed about 6 months previously :-)
ObCC: Out of interest, how many people here are running OpenBSD on VAX? Is
there anything to beware of (I'd network boot it), more so that using
NetBSD/VAX (which I have been using successfully)?
Dan
8246
days inactive
8250
days old
12 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
cvisors＠carnagevisors.net -
dankolb＠ox.compsoc.net -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
dtwright＠uiuc.edu -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
rhudson＠cnonline.net -
tothwolf＠concentric.net