March 2002 - main

Re: (Now OT) [Alug] Alcatel USB speedtouch adsl modem
by Matt Parker 21 Mar '02

21 Mar '02

On Thursday 21 March 2002 19:51, you wrote: > Does anybody have any ideas? > > my box is a celeron 433, using a uhci USB chipset erm no other real > pertinent details, kernel 2.4.18 and Debian testing. > > Thanks > Adam > > "a funny thing about regret is, that it's better to regret > something you have done, than to regret something you haven't done" Sorry, can't help with your problem. But I love your sig. My usenet nick is Cowboy Bob so I guess you know why I picked up on it. Regards, Matt

2 1

Re: [Alug] Alcatel USB speedtouch adsl modem
by MJ Ray 21 Mar '02

21 Mar '02

Adam: > The best I have got is 50% reply to pings from the ppp partner now, but no > outside connectivity. What I may need is different firmware though, there > appears to be at least 6 versions of which i have 2. That's very similar to the wrong HCI drivers problem I had on the other machine here. > AFAICS the ohci drivers should not work but i may give it a go in a while, > just we need the line up by this evening... so I may have to resort to > windows and proxy... There are two UHCI driver modules in the main kernel. -- MJR

2 1

Alcatel USB speedtouch adsl modem
by Adam Bower 21 Mar '02

21 Mar '02

Hi all, I'm having a complete nightmare with this modem, I have grabbed the drivers from sourceforge, (both CVS and stable) followed the FAQ and built a 2.4.18 kernel with all the required option and still can't get the thing to work! I have visited the #speedtouch irc channel and found no-one willing to help and I'm getting to the stage of considering installing windows over all of the linux boxen around here! Anyhow the main problem stems from trying to run modem_run -v 2 -m -f mgmt.o (also tried with the -s option) and i can't get it to upload the firmware. The only real clue is in dmesg where i get these lines :- usb_control/bulk_msg: timeout usbdevfs: USBDEVFS_BULK failed dev 2 ep 0x85 len 512 ret -110 usb_control/bulk_msg: timeout usbdevfs: USBDEVFS_BULK failed dev 2 ep 0x5 len 991 ret -110 also with earlier version of modem_run (stable from sourceforge) I get this kind of output on the command line :- bagpuss:/usr/src/speedtouch-1_0# /usr/local/bin/modem_run -v 2 -m -f /usr/local/bin/mgmt.o -s Gotcha, I found your ADSL ALCATEL SpeedTouch USB modem! best offset 6463 with probability 87% best offset 532634 with probability 100% BLOCK1: Connection timed out Uploading /usr/local/bin/mgmt.o failed! Continuing anyway ... Reference : 3EC 18607GAAB 02(see under your modem box) modem_start_synchro:00 00 .. === modem state at Thu Mar 21 09:52:03 2002 === c0 12 0007 : 08 . c0 12 000b : 00 00 40 02 00 00 20 01 ..@... . c0 12 000d : 00 00 00 00 .... c0 01 000e : 00 . c0 01 000f : 00 . ADSL line is blocked? Does anybody have any ideas? my box is a celeron 433, using a uhci USB chipset erm no other real pertinent details, kernel 2.4.18 and Debian testing. Thanks Adam -- Adam "a funny thing about regret is, that it's better to regret something you have done, than to regret something you haven't done"

4 4

Re: [Alug] Announce: ALUG meeting 24th March
by Jenny_Hopkins＠toby-churchill.com 20 Mar '02

20 Mar '02

> John Woodard <mail(a)johnwoodard.co.uk> wrote: > > Just a thought but should I forward this to the cam lug list? > > Yes, but someone known to their list might be better. Andrew Savory wrote: >Ok, I nominate MJ. They know and love him :-) *snicker* I'll do it if MJ would prefer to maintain an aloof distance?

2 1

Port 5005
by Paul 20 Mar '02

20 Mar '02

Hi Folks I've been trying to get a distributed application working over a network. Most of the inter-process communications are handled by a low level server using the TCP/IP stack. For remote processes, communications use port 5005. Not being particularly clued up on low level networking, how do I enable this port ? Just throw an extra problem in, is there likely to be any problems communicating with a Windows box on this port ? Regards, Paul.

3 5

Announce: ALUG meeting 24th March
by John Woodard 19 Mar '02

19 Mar '02

The next Anglian Linux Users Group meeting will be on Sunday 24th March 2002 2:00pm - 6:00pm at AT Veterinary Systems Elmtree Business Park Elmswell Bury St. Edmunds Location can be found at: http://www.vetsystems.com/contacts/location%20map.htm Host for the meeting will be Rob Tillyard mailto:rob@vetsystems.com Normal warnings apply kit is brought at your own risk please label it to avoid confusion. More details in the wiki contrib area http://www.alug.org.uk/contrib/?Elmswell%20for%20March%2024th. I'll post this to the various relevant usenet groups over the next couple of days. -- cheers, bj

3 3

March 24th Meeting.
by John Seago 19 Mar '02

19 Mar '02

Directions and a Map would be very helpfull. I'm planning on being there, but I may be a little late as I think I have to shoot, (archery), a league match on that Sunday, but I should be able to manage to get there about 14.30 > 14.45. -- John Seago Change is not a synonym for `progress'.

1 0

March 24th Meeting.
by Robert Tillyard 19 Mar '02

19 Mar '02

Are we all OK for a March 24th meeting at Elmswell? This will be my first so is there anything I need to provide or do? Rob.

3 2

Re: [Alug] March 24th Meeting.
by Jenny_Hopkins＠toby-churchill.com 19 Mar '02

19 Mar '02

Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> wrote: > Are we all OK for a March 24th meeting at Elmswell? This will be my > first so is there anything I need to provide or do? I just realised I probably can't make it, although I will try my utmost. (Don't let that stop you, though....!!!) Jen.

1 0

Re: [Alug] Port 5005
by Paul 18 Mar '02

18 Mar '02

Hi Richard Perhaps "enabling the port" was the wrong phrase. I haver the server app running on one machine and it accepts local connections without any problems. When the remote client attempts to connect, the connection is refused on port 5005. There is no firewall, and system security is as lax as I know how to make it. It could be a bug in the server/client software, I'm just working through the various possibilties at the moment. Regards, Paul. On Monday 18 March 2002 23:04, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > There's no such concept as "enabling" a TCP port.

2 1