|
|
I'm trying to get something called MythTV working accross multiple
PCs.
In a nutshell, it consists of:
- A "Server" PC with TV tuner cards on it which records shows and
stores them on it's hard drive
- One or more "Viewer" PCss that connect to the server to view
recorded shows
But the setup isn't working for me. Something to do with with my
routers is my first suspicion.
A "Viewer" PC is names "eee901".
When I ping that box from different PCs on the same LAN I get
different results.
From my main PC - not the "Server", just one that I do most of my work
on,
I get an expected result:
--------------------------------------------------
C:\>ping eee901
Pinging eee901 [192.168.0.109] with 32 bytes of d
Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from
192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109:
bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms
TTL=6
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.109:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% Approximate round
trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
----------------------------------------------------
From the "Viewer" PC, I get two unexpected results - from two
different Pings:
--------------------------------------------------
x[ at ]eee901:-$ sudo ping eee901
[sudo] password for x:
PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) 56(84 bytes of data.
--------------------------------------------------
Yet, on a prior ping, I got:
--------------------------------------------------
64 bytes from 8.15.7.117: icmp_seq=01 ttl=53 time=15.8ms
--------------------------------------------------
Does this tell something to somebody who knows more than Yours Truly?
The network looks like this:
LinkSys "N" wireless router ===>
eee901
^
|
Verizon FIOS ====> Verizon Router ===> Main PC
Wireless disabled on the Verizon router.
LinkSys wireless router has DHCP disabled.
Connection between LinkSys and eee901 is WiFi.
|
|
It seems to me some of computers are using different subnets. Posting the
results of ipconfig /all on all computers may help.
--
Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on
http://www.ChicagoTech.net
How to Setup Windows, Network, VPN & Remote Access on
http://www.HowToNetworking.com
"PeteCresswell" <PeteCress[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7677a752-e9b4-4fea-a374-3c8c916e834f[ at ]n2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > I'm trying to get something called MythTV working accross multiple
> PCs.
>
> In a nutshell, it consists of:
>
> - A "Server" PC with TV tuner cards on it which records shows and
> stores them on it's hard drive
>
> - One or more "Viewer" PCss that connect to the server to view
> recorded shows
>
>
> But the setup isn't working for me. Something to do with with my
> routers is my first suspicion.
>
> A "Viewer" PC is names "eee901".
>
> When I ping that box from different PCs on the same LAN I get
> different results.
>
>
> From my main PC - not the "Server", just one that I do most of my work
> on,
> I get an expected result:
> --------------------------------------------------
> C:\>ping eee901
>
> Pinging eee901 [192.168.0.109] with 32 bytes of d
>
> Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from
> 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109:
> bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms
> TTL=6
>
> Ping statistics for 192.168.0.109:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% Approximate round
> trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> From the "Viewer" PC, I get two unexpected results - from two
> different Pings:
> --------------------------------------------------
> x[ at ]eee901:-$ sudo ping eee901
> [sudo] password for x:
>
> PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) 56(84 bytes of data.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Yet, on a prior ping, I got:
> --------------------------------------------------
> 64 bytes from 8.15.7.117: icmp_seq=01 ttl=53 time=15.8ms
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Does this tell something to somebody who knows more than Yours Truly?
>
> The network looks like this:
>
> LinkSys "N" wireless router ===>
> eee901
> ^
> |
> Verizon FIOS ====> Verizon Router ===> Main PC
>
>
> Wireless disabled on the Verizon router.
> LinkSys wireless router has DHCP disabled.
> Connection between LinkSys and eee901 is WiFi.
>
|
|
PeteCresswell wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I'm trying to get something called MythTV working accross multiple
> PCs.
>
> In a nutshell, it consists of:
>
> - A "Server" PC with TV tuner cards on it which records shows and
> stores them on it's hard drive
>
> - One or more "Viewer" PCss that connect to the server to view
> recorded shows
>
>
> But the setup isn't working for me. Something to do with with my
> routers is my first suspicion.
>
> A "Viewer" PC is names "eee901".
>
> When I ping that box from different PCs on the same LAN I get
> different results.
>
>
> From my main PC - not the "Server", just one that I do most of my work
> on,
> I get an expected result:
> --------------------------------------------------
> C:\>ping eee901
>
> Pinging eee901 [192.168.0.109] with 32 bytes of d
>
> Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from
> 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109:
> bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms
> TTL=6
>
> Ping statistics for 192.168.0.109:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% Approximate round
> trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> From the "Viewer" PC, I get two unexpected results - from two
> different Pings:
> --------------------------------------------------
> x[ at ]eee901:-$ sudo ping eee901
> [sudo] password for x:
>
> PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) 56(84 bytes of data.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Yet, on a prior ping, I got:
> --------------------------------------------------
> 64 bytes from 8.15.7.117: icmp_seq=01 ttl=53 time=15.8ms
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Does this tell something to somebody who knows more than Yours Truly?
>
> The network looks like this:
>
> LinkSys "N" wireless router ===>
> eee901
> ^
> |
> Verizon FIOS ====> Verizon Router ===> Main PC
>
>
> Wireless disabled on the Verizon router.
> LinkSys wireless router has DHCP disabled.
> Connection between LinkSys and eee901 is WiFi.
>
What seems to be happening is that you're using the DNS server(s)
supplied by Verizon to look up "eee901" and it's resolving that to
various places out on the Internet.
For local name resolution, you should explicitly enable NetBIOS over TCP
(NetBT). You'll need to check your node types as well. See
http://networking.nitecruzr.net/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html
--
Lem -- MS-MVP
To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
|
|
Hi
Not clear what exactly you are doing.
Ping eee901 [192.168.0.109] seems like a local IP so it is very fast.
PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) is pinging to an external address on the
Internet so it is much slower and it should be like this.
Jack (MS, MVP-Networking)
"PeteCresswell" <PeteCress[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7677a752-e9b4-4fea-a374-3c8c916e834f[ at ]n2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > I'm trying to get something called MythTV working accross multiple
> PCs.
>
> In a nutshell, it consists of:
>
> - A "Server" PC with TV tuner cards on it which records shows and
> stores them on it's hard drive
>
> - One or more "Viewer" PCss that connect to the server to view
> recorded shows
>
>
> But the setup isn't working for me. Something to do with with my
> routers is my first suspicion.
>
> A "Viewer" PC is names "eee901".
>
> When I ping that box from different PCs on the same LAN I get
> different results.
>
>
> From my main PC - not the "Server", just one that I do most of my work
> on,
> I get an expected result:
> --------------------------------------------------
> C:\>ping eee901
>
> Pinging eee901 [192.168.0.109] with 32 bytes of d
>
> Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from
> 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109:
> bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms
> TTL=6
>
> Ping statistics for 192.168.0.109:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% Approximate round
> trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> From the "Viewer" PC, I get two unexpected results - from two
> different Pings:
> --------------------------------------------------
> x[ at ]eee901:-$ sudo ping eee901
> [sudo] password for x:
>
> PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) 56(84 bytes of data.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Yet, on a prior ping, I got:
> --------------------------------------------------
> 64 bytes from 8.15.7.117: icmp_seq=01 ttl=53 time=15.8ms
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Does this tell something to somebody who knows more than Yours Truly?
>
> The network looks like this:
>
> LinkSys "N" wireless router ===>
> eee901
> ^
> |
> Verizon FIOS ====> Verizon Router ===> Main PC
>
>
> Wireless disabled on the Verizon router.
> LinkSys wireless router has DHCP disabled.
> Connection between LinkSys and eee901 is WiFi.
>
|
|
"PeteCresswell" <PeteCress[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7677a752-e9b4-4fea-a374-3c8c916e834f[ at ]n2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > I'm trying to get something called MythTV working accross multiple
> PCs.
>
> In a nutshell, it consists of:
>
> - A "Server" PC with TV tuner cards on it which records shows and
> stores them on it's hard drive
>
> - One or more "Viewer" PCss that connect to the server to view
> recorded shows
>
>
> But the setup isn't working for me. Something to do with with my
> routers is my first suspicion.
>
> A "Viewer" PC is names "eee901".
>
> When I ping that box from different PCs on the same LAN I get
> different results.
>
>
> From my main PC - not the "Server", just one that I do most of my work
> on,
> I get an expected result:
> --------------------------------------------------
> C:\>ping eee901
>
> Pinging eee901 [192.168.0.109] with 32 bytes of d
>
> Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from
> 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109:
> bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=6 Reply from 192.168.0.109: bytes=32 time<1ms
> TTL=6
>
> Ping statistics for 192.168.0.109:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% Approximate round
> trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> From the "Viewer" PC, I get two unexpected results - from two
> different Pings:
> --------------------------------------------------
> x[ at ]eee901:-$ sudo ping eee901
> [sudo] password for x:
>
> PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) 56(84 bytes of data.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Yet, on a prior ping, I got:
> --------------------------------------------------
> 64 bytes from 8.15.7.117: icmp_seq=01 ttl=53 time=15.8ms
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Does this tell something to somebody who knows more than Yours Truly?
>
> The network looks like this:
>
> LinkSys "N" wireless router ===>
> eee901
> ^
> |
> Verizon FIOS ====> Verizon Router ===> Main PC
>
>
> Wireless disabled on the Verizon router.
> LinkSys wireless router has DHCP disabled.
> Connection between LinkSys and eee901 is WiFi.
>
Well, eee901 cannot be 63.251.179.3, 8.15.7.117, and 192.168.0.109. The
most likely cause is an improper setup of the Linksys router. What you must
do for this device is convert it to a switch. Doesn't the router manual
tell you how to do that? Why can't you use wireless in the Verizon router?
Jim
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Well, eee901 cannot be 63.251.179.3, 8.15.7.117, and 192.168.0.109. The
> most likely cause is an improper setup of the Linksys router. What you must
> do for this device is convert it to a switch. Doesn't the router manual
> tell you how to do that? Why can't you use wireless in the Verizon router?
I wanted to use the LinkSys bc it does "N".
Sounds like I need to dig through the manual to get the real deal on
making it a switch.
What I did so far was on hear-say. Basically just turned off DHCP
and assigned an IP address within the other router's mask.
Just on GPs, I set all five of my PC addresses to Static in the D-Link
router.
Dunno if it changed anything, but in testing it I have established
that, using IP addresses, everybody can ping everybody else.
But anybody attached to the LinkSys router cannot ping by device
name. It's like there's some kind of pointer that I'm not setting
that tells it where to go first for it's DSN lookups.
Now I'm gonna dredge up the LinkSys' instructions and take it from
the top...
|
|
PeteCresswell wrote:
[Quoted Text] >> Well, eee901 cannot be 63.251.179.3, 8.15.7.117, and 192.168.0.109. The
>> most likely cause is an improper setup of the Linksys router. What you must
>> do for this device is convert it to a switch. Doesn't the router manual
>> tell you how to do that? Why can't you use wireless in the Verizon router?
>
> I wanted to use the LinkSys bc it does "N".
>
> Sounds like I need to dig through the manual to get the real deal on
> making it a switch.
> What I did so far was on hear-say. Basically just turned off DHCP
> and assigned an IP address within the other router's mask.
>
> Just on GPs, I set all five of my PC addresses to Static in the D-Link
> router.
>
> Dunno if it changed anything, but in testing it I have established
> that, using IP addresses, everybody can ping everybody else.
>
> But anybody attached to the LinkSys router cannot ping by device
> name. It's like there's some kind of pointer that I'm not setting
> that tells it where to go first for it's DSN lookups.
>
> Now I'm gonna dredge up the LinkSys' instructions and take it from
> the top...
>
It's always a good idea to RTFM, but your problem is most likely not
your router's configuration. Do an ipconfig /all on your computers and
you will almost certainly see the entry for DNS either pointing to the
IP address of your Verizon router or (more likely) a DNS server owned by
Verizon out on the 'net.
Because your pings are resolving to public Internet addresses, these
addresses most likely are coming from Verizon's DNS server. This
probably is caused either by NetBT not running on some (or all) of your
LAN computers or some other problem with the Browser Service. In
addition to the article from Chuck that is linked in my previous post
(http://networking.nitecruzr.net/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html),
see some of Chuck's other very helpful information:
http://networking.nitecruzr.net/2006/04/netbios-over-tcpip.html
http://networking.nitecruzr.net/2006/09/nt-browser-and-windows-networking.html
--
Lem -- MS-MVP
To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
|
|
Per Lem:
[Quoted Text] >Because your pings are resolving to public Internet addresses, these >addresses most likely are coming from Verizon's DNS server. This >probably is caused either by NetBT not running on some (or all) of your >LAN computers or some other problem with the Browser Service. In >addition to the article from Chuck that is linked in my previous post >( http://networking.nitecruzr.net/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html), >see some of Chuck's other very helpful information:
That's starting to ring true to me. I have two problem boxes and
they're both Linux. The to XP boxes have no such problem.
Before you introduced "NetBT", I was thinking I had to find the
place in the LinkSys' setup that told it where to go for DSN
lookups.
Now it sounds to me like lack of NetBT might be the prime
candidate.
Have I got it right?
--
PeteCresswell
|
|
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Per Lem: >> Because your pings are resolving to public Internet addresses, these >> addresses most likely are coming from Verizon's DNS server. This >> probably is caused either by NetBT not running on some (or all) of your >> LAN computers or some other problem with the Browser Service. In >> addition to the article from Chuck that is linked in my previous post >> ( http://networking.nitecruzr.net/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html), >> see some of Chuck's other very helpful information: > > That's starting to ring true to me. I have two problem boxes and > they're both Linux. The to XP boxes have no such problem. > > Before you introduced "NetBT", I was thinking I had to find the > place in the LinkSys' setup that told it where to go for DSN > lookups. > > Now it sounds to me like lack of NetBT might be the prime > candidate. > > Have I got it right?
This is the first time you've mentioned Linux or that your problem is
with your Linux boxen.
One of the methods *Windows XP* uses to resolve host names over a TCP/IP
network is to broadcast NetBIOS Name Query Requests.
I'm not as conversant with how Linux does name resolution, but I doubt
if it's the same as Windows. You should probably Google for "Linux LAN
name resolution" and this hit looks as if it might be helpful:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=405662
As does this one on configuring Samba:
http://www.swerdna.net.au/linhowtosambabrowse.html
Although there are some folks who read posts in these Windows newsgroups
who also understand Linux networking, you're more likely to get answers
from them if you include Linux in your subject, e.g., "name resolution
problem in a mixed XP/Linux network". OTOH, because your problem seems
to be with the Linux configuration, you'll probably get more and better
responses in a Linux newsgroup, e.g., comp.os.linux.networking
--
Lem -- MS-MVP
To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
|
|
To configure the router as a WAP what you said is correct (" Basically just
turned off DHCP and assigned an IP address within the other router's mask.")
assuming the IP address you're using is in right subnet for the Vz router
but outside it's DHCP address. Additionally, note that the cable from the
Verizon router should be going to a LAN Port on the Linksys, and not the
WAN/Uplink port.
--
"PeteCresswell" <PeteCress[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fc1d32b-e813-4b07-b7ab-b583349a83e6[ at ]r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] >
>> Well, eee901 cannot be 63.251.179.3, 8.15.7.117, and 192.168.0.109. The
>> most likely cause is an improper setup of the Linksys router. What you
>> must
>> do for this device is convert it to a switch. Doesn't the router manual
>> tell you how to do that? Why can't you use wireless in the Verizon
>> router?
>
> I wanted to use the LinkSys bc it does "N".
>
> Sounds like I need to dig through the manual to get the real deal on
> making it a switch.
> What I did so far was on hear-say. Basically just turned off DHCP
> and assigned an IP address within the other router's mask.
>
> Just on GPs, I set all five of my PC addresses to Static in the D-Link
> router.
>
> Dunno if it changed anything, but in testing it I have established
> that, using IP addresses, everybody can ping everybody else.
>
> But anybody attached to the LinkSys router cannot ping by device
> name. It's like there's some kind of pointer that I'm not setting
> that tells it where to go first for it's DSN lookups.
>
> Now I'm gonna dredge up the LinkSys' instructions and take it from
> the top...
>
|
|
"Lem" <lemp40[ at ]unknownhost> wrote in message
news:uuWpQrXZJHA.1188[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> This is the first time you've mentioned Linux or that your problem is with
> your Linux boxen.
>
I don't mean to nitpick. You must have missed his original post,
specifically the following:
--------------------------------------------------
x[ at ]eee901:-$ sudo ping eee901
[sudo] password for x:
PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) 56(84 bytes of data.
--------------------------------------------------
I kept quiet as soon as I noticed Pete's problem was related a machine with
"sudo" command :-p
|
|
Per GTS:
[Quoted Text] >To configure the router as a WAP what you said is correct (" Basically just
>turned off DHCP and assigned an IP address within the other router's mask.")
>assuming the IP address you're using is in right subnet for the Vz router
>but outside it's DHCP address. Additionally, note that the cable from the
>Verizon router should be going to a LAN Port on the Linksys, and not the
>WAN/Uplink port.
I also went a step further and defined each of my 4 PCs in the
router's Static IP table.... if only for the comfort of being
able to print out the list and know that *that's* the address for
*this* box.... now and forever.
--
PeteCresswell
|
|
Per John:
[Quoted Text] >I don't mean to nitpick. You must have missed his original post,
>specifically the following:
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>x[ at ]eee901:-$ sudo ping eee901
>[sudo] password for x:
>
>PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) 56(84 bytes of data.
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>I kept quiet as soon as I noticed Pete's problem was related a machine with
>"sudo" command :-p
I've heard from quite a number of Linux users what a great system
it is and how poor MS' OS' are.
Having said that - and being of reasonable intelligence, and
making a decent living writing software....
So far, I've found Linux to be a serious time sink.
My experience with Windows XP is like that with an appliance: you
open up the box, you plug it in, and you use it. Linux, OTOH,
is more like a hobby or a second job - except that the pay is
lousy.
--
PeteCresswell
|
|
John wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "Lem" <lemp40[ at ]unknownhost> wrote in message
> news:uuWpQrXZJHA.1188[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> This is the first time you've mentioned Linux or that your problem is with
>> your Linux boxen.
>>
>
> I don't mean to nitpick. You must have missed his original post,
> specifically the following:
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> x[ at ]eee901:-$ sudo ping eee901
> [sudo] password for x:
>
> PING eee901 (63.251.179.13) 56(84 bytes of data.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> I kept quiet as soon as I noticed Pete's problem was related a machine with
> "sudo" command :-p
>
>
You're correct. I missed the "sudo".
--
Lem -- MS-MVP
To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
|
|
Per Lem:
[Quoted Text] >> I kept quiet as soon as I noticed Pete's problem was related a machine with
>> "sudo" command :-p
>>
>>
>
>You're correct. I missed the "sudo".
"Sudo" no more.
I finally gave up on Linux and put XP Pro on it.
For me, at least, XP Pro is like a toaster: I bring it home, I
unpack it, I plug it in, and I start making toast.
Linux... Sheesh!.... It's like having a part-time job, except the
pay isn't very good.
Also, contra-intuitive as it may seem, Ubuntu took 61 seconds
from a cold start to a usable desktop. XP took 24 seconds last
time I put a clock on it. Will probably get longer when I
finish installing MS Office and a lot of other stuff.... but the
Ubuntu build didn't have much on it either.
--
PeteCresswell
|
|
"(PeteCresswell)" <x[ at ]y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:k8hal4dke3chfuig5293n0ss4nni1jk8vl[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > Per Lem:
>>> I kept quiet as soon as I noticed Pete's problem was related a machine
>>> with
>>> "sudo" command :-p
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You're correct. I missed the "sudo".
>
> "Sudo" no more.
>
> I finally gave up on Linux and put XP Pro on it.
>
> For me, at least, XP Pro is like a toaster: I bring it home, I
> unpack it, I plug it in, and I start making toast.
>
> Linux... Sheesh!.... It's like having a part-time job, except the
> pay isn't very good.
>
> Also, contra-intuitive as it may seem, Ubuntu took 61 seconds
> from a cold start to a usable desktop. XP took 24 seconds last
> time I put a clock on it. Will probably get longer when I
> finish installing MS Office and a lot of other stuff.... but the
> Ubuntu build didn't have much on it either.
<grin> I like the analogy.
Welcome to the *real world* of Windows -vs- Linux. Much of the hype about
Linux in general is just political correctness amongst a world that is
predominantly anti-Microsoft. The same can be said for Mac/Apple.
Linux does a fine job in the right situations where it is well suited and we
run a pretty good chunk of Linux boxes around here,...but it is just another
Operating System, there is nothing mystical or magical about it.
--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com
The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|