Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 1412
From: Digest <deadmail>
To: "OS/2GenAu Digest"<deadmail>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:01:12 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600

**************************************************
Friday 05 January 2007
 Number  1412
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
2  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client : Ken Laurie <ken.laurie at graeleah dot com>
3  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
4   OT: Better VOIP QOS adapter than a Netcomm V300 : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
5  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client : Kev <kdownes at tpg dot com dot au>
6  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
7  Re:  OT: Better VOIP QOS adapter than a Netcomm V300 : David Forrester" <davidfor at internode.on dot net>
8  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
9   Firefox 2.01 - BEWARE ! : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
10  Re:  Firefox 2.01 - BEWARE ! : John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>

**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 06:51:04 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client

Hi Ian,

  Thanks for that - This is my understanding as well, that it's TCPBEUI, 
(Netbios over IP) not NETBEUI. I am running both NetBEUI and TCPBEUI. It 
could be a configuration thing of course - there are three modes for 
TCPBEUI - Broadcast (B), Point-to-point (P) and Hybrid (H). The default 
mode is broadcast. If either P or H are required, then a DDNS is also 
required for the system to operate.

  Now that I have proved the connection can work with the Netlabs Samba 
client, I might go back and see if I can change anything in the TCPBEUI 
configuration to make it compatible as well. It "ought" to work.

  Ken, can you tell me which mode you are using in your Netbios over IP 
configuration on the OS/2 box please ?

  By the way, for a bit of background, the cheap NAS case (takes a 
standard 3.5" EIDE ATA drive - I have installed a 250GB one) is called 
"LAN.Server" it's built in China by a company whose website is 
www.sprinter dot com.cn although I don't know if the company name actually 
is sprinter - more likely it's something in Chinese that I can't write 
let a alone pronounce I guess.

The quality of manufacture and case design is surprisingly good for a 
sub $100 NAS case. It has USB 2.0 and 10/100 connectivity and through 
SAMBA it is supposed to support SMB and Novell IPX. It also contains an 
FTP server that works fine. Adminstration is via a built in HTTP server. 
Even the user manual is quite readable - probably not written by a 
native english speaker but if whoever wrote it had run it through a 
grammer checker before printing it, I probably wouldn't have known.

Cheers/2

Ed.

Ian Manners wrote:
> Hi Ed
> 
> I havent gone to actually check this but I thought Samba was NETBEUI
> over TCP/IP only, ie, if you use the old standard NETBEUI protocol
> by itself you would not be able to connect to Samba.
> 
> You obviously have the TCP/IP stack running, are you running
> NETBEUI over TCP/IP, or plain NETBEUI ?
> 
> There are also different versions of the SMB, and I believe that
> some parts of it were dropped in the NETBEUI over TCP/IP
> version for speed purposes, and possibly due to licensing issues
> in relation to Samba.
> 
> I could have this a bit muddled up as this is coming from some
> very distant memories !
> 
> Cheers
> Ian Manners
> 
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:37:07 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:
> 
>> Well using NetDrive and the Samba plugin worked so there must be a 
>> difference in the embedded samba that this cheap NAS uses that stops it 
>> working with standard OS/2 Lan requester.
>>
>> I'll document everything on the NAS for anyone who is interested later.
>>
>> Cheers/2
>>
>> Ed.
>>
>> Ken Laurie wrote:
>>> Hi Ed
>>>
>>> This is the version of SAMBA on the server.
>>>
>>> ]# net -V
>>> Version 3.0.20a-2.2.cc
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> Ed Durrant wrote:
>>>> Hi Ken,
>>>>
>>>>   I was also using commandline but with no luck either a net use 
>>>> command or a net view command simply hang and go no further.
>>>>
>>>>   I guess it's the version of Samba that they're using as it works 
>>>> from a Windoze box.
>>>>
>>>>   I'll try the netlabs Samba client and see if that's any better.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers/2
>>>>
>>>> Ed.
>>>>
>>>> Ken Laurie wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I am actually running a CENTOS Linux box (2 in fact) with SAMBA and I 
>>>>> use eCS to connect to them using the standard IBM LAN requester. The 
>>>>> only problem I have is if I try to use the WPS to do anything. I just 
>>>>> use line commands to copy delete etc on the SAMBA shares.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a net view of one of my Linux boxes:
>>>>> [D:\]net view \\gateway
>>>>> Shared resources at \\gateway
>>>>> Gateway server
>>>>>
>>>>> Netname      Type         Used as  Comment
>>>>> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Epson        Print                 Epson R210
>>>>> EpsonR210    Print                 EpsonR210
>>>>> EpsonR210Win Print                 Epson R210 for Windows
>>>>> ftpsite      Disk                  Public FTP Server Folder
>>>>> xxxx         Disk                  Home directory of xxxx
>>>>> Logs         Disk                  Log files
>>>>> netlogon     Disk                  Netlogon
>>>>> Photos       Print                 Photo settings
>>>>> profiles     Disk                  Profiles
>>>>> The command completed successfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Durrant wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   can anyone tell me if the standard IBM Lan requester should talk 
>>>>>>> to a Samba server without issues or do I need to install a ported 
>>>>>>> SAMBA client ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I've bought myself a different NAS unit that runs a SAMBA server. 
>>>>>>> I can connect via HTTP and FTP without any issues however when I 
>>>>>>> try to map it as a network drive, the action never completes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Could this be an incompatibility between this particular 
>>>>>>> implementation of SAMBA and IBM's SMB client or would one not 
>>>>>>> exepct the IBM client to talk to a SAMBA server ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers/2
>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never gotten around to actually installing SAMBA here, 
>>>>>> (downloaded many times in anticipation) but from what I have noticed 
>>>>>> whilst reading the various lists/groups, one definitely does have to 
>>>>>> have a SAMBA client on OS/2-eCS before one can talk to a SAMBA 
>>>>>> server running on Linux/WIN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have a scan through the ecomstation.support dot networking group on 
>>>>>> news.ecomstation dot com! ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:56:51 +1100
From:  Ken Laurie <ken.laurie at graeleah dot com>
Subject:  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client

Hi Ed

As my install was done using basically the defaults then it would have 
to be the default broadcast. I initially had a lot of difficulty 
installing eCS 1.2R on an AMD64, so I kept everything as default 
wherever possible.

regards
Ken

Ed Durrant wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
>  Thanks for that - This is my understanding as well, that it's TCPBEUI, 
> (Netbios over IP) not NETBEUI. I am running both NetBEUI and TCPBEUI. It 
> could be a configuration thing of course - there are three modes for 
> TCPBEUI - Broadcast (B), Point-to-point (P) and Hybrid (H). The default 
> mode is broadcast. If either P or H are required, then a DDNS is also 
> required for the system to operate.
> 
>  Now that I have proved the connection can work with the Netlabs Samba 
> client, I might go back and see if I can change anything in the TCPBEUI 
> configuration to make it compatible as well. It "ought" to work.
> 
>  Ken, can you tell me which mode you are using in your Netbios over IP 
> configuration on the OS/2 box please ?
> 
>  By the way, for a bit of background, the cheap NAS case (takes a 
> standard 3.5" EIDE ATA drive - I have installed a 250GB one) is called 
> "LAN.Server" it's built in China by a company whose website is 
> www.sprinter dot com.cn although I don't know if the company name actually 
> is sprinter - more likely it's something in Chinese that I can't write 
> let a alone pronounce I guess.
> 
> The quality of manufacture and case design is surprisingly good for a 
> sub $100 NAS case. It has USB 2.0 and 10/100 connectivity and through 
> SAMBA it is supposed to support SMB and Novell IPX. It also contains an 
> FTP server that works fine. Adminstration is via a built in HTTP server. 
> Even the user manual is quite readable - probably not written by a 
> native english speaker but if whoever wrote it had run it through a 
> grammer checker before printing it, I probably wouldn't have known.
> 
> Cheers/2
> 
> Ed.
> 
> 
> Ian Manners wrote:
>> Hi Ed
>>
>> I havent gone to actually check this but I thought Samba was NETBEUI
>> over TCP/IP only, ie, if you use the old standard NETBEUI protocol
>> by itself you would not be able to connect to Samba.
>>
>> You obviously have the TCP/IP stack running, are you running
>> NETBEUI over TCP/IP, or plain NETBEUI ?
>>
>> There are also different versions of the SMB, and I believe that
>> some parts of it were dropped in the NETBEUI over TCP/IP
>> version for speed purposes, and possibly due to licensing issues
>> in relation to Samba.
>>
>> I could have this a bit muddled up as this is coming from some
>> very distant memories !
>>
>> Cheers
>> Ian Manners
>>
>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:37:07 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:
>>
>>> Well using NetDrive and the Samba plugin worked so there must be a 
>>> difference in the embedded samba that this cheap NAS uses that stops 
>>> it working with standard OS/2 Lan requester.
>>>
>>> I'll document everything on the NAS for anyone who is interested later.
>>>
>>> Cheers/2
>>>
>>> Ed.
>>>
>>> Ken Laurie wrote:
>>>> Hi Ed
>>>>
>>>> This is the version of SAMBA on the server.
>>>>
>>>> ]# net -V
>>>> Version 3.0.20a-2.2.cc
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> Ed Durrant wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ken,
>>>>>
>>>>>   I was also using commandline but with no luck either a net use 
>>>>> command or a net view command simply hang and go no further.
>>>>>
>>>>>   I guess it's the version of Samba that they're using as it works 
>>>>> from a Windoze box.
>>>>>
>>>>>   I'll try the netlabs Samba client and see if that's any better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers/2
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken Laurie wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am actually running a CENTOS Linux box (2 in fact) with SAMBA 
>>>>>> and I use eCS to connect to them using the standard IBM LAN 
>>>>>> requester. The only problem I have is if I try to use the WPS to 
>>>>>> do anything. I just use line commands to copy delete etc on the 
>>>>>> SAMBA shares.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a net view of one of my Linux boxes:
>>>>>> [D:\]net view \\gateway
>>>>>> Shared resources at \\gateway
>>>>>> Gateway server
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Netname      Type         Used as  Comment
>>>>>> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Epson        Print                 Epson R210
>>>>>> EpsonR210    Print                 EpsonR210
>>>>>> EpsonR210Win Print                 Epson R210 for Windows
>>>>>> ftpsite      Disk                  Public FTP Server Folder
>>>>>> xxxx         Disk                  Home directory of xxxx
>>>>>> Logs         Disk                  Log files
>>>>>> netlogon     Disk                  Netlogon
>>>>>> Photos       Print                 Photo settings
>>>>>> profiles     Disk                  Profiles
>>>>>> The command completed successfully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Durrant wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   can anyone tell me if the standard IBM Lan requester should 
>>>>>>>> talk to a Samba server without issues or do I need to install a 
>>>>>>>> ported SAMBA client ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  I've bought myself a different NAS unit that runs a SAMBA 
>>>>>>>> server. I can connect via HTTP and FTP without any issues 
>>>>>>>> however when I try to map it as a network drive, the action 
>>>>>>>> never completes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Could this be an incompatibility between this particular 
>>>>>>>> implementation of SAMBA and IBM's SMB client or would one not 
>>>>>>>> exepct the IBM client to talk to a SAMBA server ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers/2
>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've never gotten around to actually installing SAMBA here, 
>>>>>>> (downloaded many times in anticipation) but from what I have 
>>>>>>> noticed whilst reading the various lists/groups, one definitely 
>>>>>>> does have to have a SAMBA client on OS/2-eCS before one can talk 
>>>>>>> to a SAMBA server running on Linux/WIN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have a scan through the ecomstation.support dot networking group on 
>>>>>>> news.ecomstation dot com! ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>
>>> 
>>
>>
 
> 
> 

> 
> !DSPAM:1,459d5bb023611000884268!
> 
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   3 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:03:04 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client

Thanks Ken, so it's possibly not as easy as simply the wrong TCPBEUI 
mode then !

Thanks

Ed.

Ken Laurie wrote:
> Hi Ed
> 
> As my install was done using basically the defaults then it would have 
> to be the default broadcast. I initially had a lot of difficulty 
> installing eCS 1.2R on an AMD64, so I kept everything as default 
> wherever possible.
> 
> regards
> Ken
> 
> Ed Durrant wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>>  Thanks for that - This is my understanding as well, that it's 
>> TCPBEUI, (Netbios over IP) not NETBEUI. I am running both NetBEUI and 
>> TCPBEUI. It could be a configuration thing of course - there are three 
>> modes for TCPBEUI - Broadcast (B), Point-to-point (P) and Hybrid (H). 
>> The default mode is broadcast. If either P or H are required, then a 
>> DDNS is also required for the system to operate.
>>
>>  Now that I have proved the connection can work with the Netlabs Samba 
>> client, I might go back and see if I can change anything in the 
>> TCPBEUI configuration to make it compatible as well. It "ought" to work.
>>
>>  Ken, can you tell me which mode you are using in your Netbios over IP 
>> configuration on the OS/2 box please ?
>>
>>  By the way, for a bit of background, the cheap NAS case (takes a 
>> standard 3.5" EIDE ATA drive - I have installed a 250GB one) is called 
>> "LAN.Server" it's built in China by a company whose website is 
>> www.sprinter dot com.cn although I don't know if the company name actually 
>> is sprinter - more likely it's something in Chinese that I can't write 
>> let a alone pronounce I guess.
>>
>> The quality of manufacture and case design is surprisingly good for a 
>> sub $100 NAS case. It has USB 2.0 and 10/100 connectivity and through 
>> SAMBA it is supposed to support SMB and Novell IPX. It also contains 
>> an FTP server that works fine. Adminstration is via a built in HTTP 
>> server. Even the user manual is quite readable - probably not written 
>> by a native english speaker but if whoever wrote it had run it through 
>> a grammer checker before printing it, I probably wouldn't have known.
>>
>> Cheers/2
>>
>> Ed.
>>
>>
>> Ian Manners wrote:
>>> Hi Ed
>>>
>>> I havent gone to actually check this but I thought Samba was NETBEUI
>>> over TCP/IP only, ie, if you use the old standard NETBEUI protocol
>>> by itself you would not be able to connect to Samba.
>>>
>>> You obviously have the TCP/IP stack running, are you running
>>> NETBEUI over TCP/IP, or plain NETBEUI ?
>>>
>>> There are also different versions of the SMB, and I believe that
>>> some parts of it were dropped in the NETBEUI over TCP/IP
>>> version for speed purposes, and possibly due to licensing issues
>>> in relation to Samba.
>>>
>>> I could have this a bit muddled up as this is coming from some
>>> very distant memories !
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Ian Manners
>>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:37:07 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well using NetDrive and the Samba plugin worked so there must be a 
>>>> difference in the embedded samba that this cheap NAS uses that stops 
>>>> it working with standard OS/2 Lan requester.
>>>>
>>>> I'll document everything on the NAS for anyone who is interested later.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers/2
>>>>
>>>> Ed.
>>>>
>>>> Ken Laurie wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the version of SAMBA on the server.
>>>>>
>>>>> ]# net -V
>>>>> Version 3.0.20a-2.2.cc
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed Durrant wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Ken,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I was also using commandline but with no luck either a net use 
>>>>>> command or a net view command simply hang and go no further.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I guess it's the version of Samba that they're using as it works 
>>>>>> from a Windoze box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I'll try the netlabs Samba client and see if that's any better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers/2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken Laurie wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am actually running a CENTOS Linux box (2 in fact) with SAMBA 
>>>>>>> and I use eCS to connect to them using the standard IBM LAN 
>>>>>>> requester. The only problem I have is if I try to use the WPS to 
>>>>>>> do anything. I just use line commands to copy delete etc on the 
>>>>>>> SAMBA shares.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is a net view of one of my Linux boxes:
>>>>>>> [D:\]net view \\gateway
>>>>>>> Shared resources at \\gateway
>>>>>>> Gateway server
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Netname      Type         Used as  Comment
>>>>>>> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Epson        Print                 Epson R210
>>>>>>> EpsonR210    Print                 EpsonR210
>>>>>>> EpsonR210Win Print                 Epson R210 for Windows
>>>>>>> ftpsite      Disk                  Public FTP Server Folder
>>>>>>> xxxx         Disk                  Home directory of xxxx
>>>>>>> Logs         Disk                  Log files
>>>>>>> netlogon     Disk                  Netlogon
>>>>>>> Photos       Print                 Photo settings
>>>>>>> profiles     Disk                  Profiles
>>>>>>> The command completed successfully.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Durrant wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   can anyone tell me if the standard IBM Lan requester should 
>>>>>>>>> talk to a Samba server without issues or do I need to install a 
>>>>>>>>> ported SAMBA client ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  I've bought myself a different NAS unit that runs a SAMBA 
>>>>>>>>> server. I can connect via HTTP and FTP without any issues 
>>>>>>>>> however when I try to map it as a network drive, the action 
>>>>>>>>> never completes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Could this be an incompatibility between this particular 
>>>>>>>>> implementation of SAMBA and IBM's SMB client or would one not 
>>>>>>>>> exepct the IBM client to talk to a SAMBA server ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers/2
>>>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've never gotten around to actually installing SAMBA here, 
>>>>>>>> (downloaded many times in anticipation) but from what I have 
>>>>>>>> noticed whilst reading the various lists/groups, one definitely 
>>>>>>>> does have to have a SAMBA client on OS/2-eCS before one can talk 
>>>>>>>> to a SAMBA server running on Linux/WIN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have a scan through the ecomstation.support dot networking group on 
>>>>>>>> news.ecomstation dot com! ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
>>
>> 
>
>>
>> !DSPAM:1,459d5bb023611000884268!
>>
>>
 
> 
> 

> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   4 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:23:52 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:   OT: Better VOIP QOS adapter than a Netcomm V300

Hi, I know this is off-topic for OS/2 but ...

Is anyone using VOIP like me for cheap calls on a broadband connection ?

I've been using the Netcomm V300 router / VOIP adapter with QoS for a 
while and while it does a great job on keeping VOIP quality good when 
compared to using Sipura 2000 ATAs - It does clamp throughput of all 
traffic down to 4Mb/s.

My set up is Telstra cable modem --> WRT54G WiFi AP and router (also 
does the Telstra logon) ---> Netcomm V300 VOIP Router ---> 100 Mb/s LAN 
switch ---> PCs.

The V300 does not have Telstra cable login capabilities, so I can't put 
it first after the cable modem which in principal from a QoS point of 
view is where it should be. When I use WiFi from my laptop, it's true 
it's stealing some of the capacity from the VOIP/QoS system but it's 
rare that I use the phone and WiFi at the same time.

In principal 4Mb/s download from the internet isn't bad - except I'm on 
the 17Mb/s plan and hence paying for something I'm not getting to the PCs.

As an aside - there is also now rumours that Telstra will be upgrading 
the speed on the cable network, once all analogue Foxtel subscribers are 
removed by the end of the month and apparently they could increase the 
speed as high as 120Mb/s - they are likely to increase it to a higher 
speed than ADSL 2+ (or 3 or whatever comes) and market cable as the 
"must have" technology ahead of ADSL as they feel they are being "ripped 
off" by competitors undercutting their prices while using their lines 
and in some cases their ADSL termination devices in the exchanges. Cable 
is totally Telstra owned and they don't have to let other competitors 
onto it.

Back to the real problem - this slow down to traffic from the V300 also 
affects how fast I can print to my network attached Brother MFC 620CN as 
that has to be attached between the WiFi router and the V300 so that it 
can be accessed both from WiFi and from cabled LAN (the V300 won't allow 
print traffic from the internet to the internal side despite the fact 
that I opened the required ports - or could be simply that the Wifi 
connection doesn't know about the backwards route - either way it wont 
work).

Netcomm and MyNetPhone (who supplied this device) keep suggesting that 
the 4Mb/s cap may be lifted in future firmware versions but nothing has 
happenned so I'm considering replacing the unit with another make that 
doesn't have this issue. It'd be great if I could also find a VOIP 
router that support Telstra cable logon and even WiFi !

Any ideas ??

Cheers/2

Ed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   5 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:02:43 +0900
From:  Kev <kdownes at tpg dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client

Ed Durrant wrote:

>  By the way, for a bit of background, the cheap NAS case (takes a 
> standard 3.5" EIDE ATA drive - I have installed a 250GB one) is called 
> "LAN.Server" it's built in China by a company whose website is 
> www.sprinter dot com.cn although I don't know if the company name actually 
> is sprinter - more likely it's something in Chinese that I can't write 
> let a alone pronounce I guess.

Just to digress a little, I can't find any reference to a NAS Case at 
the quoted site - only POS printers.  I'm interested in some kind of NAS 
device for network storage, so perhaps you could point me at the right 
place.

Thanx heaps
Kev

-- 
=========================
Kev Downes
kdownes at tpg dot com dot au  ph 0404 7 0808 2
We use and recommend Xandros 4.1
=========================
There are 10 types of people ...
    ... those who understand binary, and those who don't!
=========================
"Jesus Christ is the centre of everything and the object of everything;
He who does not know him, knows nothing of the order of the world
and nothing of himself."             Blaise Pascal
=========================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   6 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:37:18 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client

Kev wrote:
> Ed Durrant wrote:
> 
>>  By the way, for a bit of background, the cheap NAS case (takes a 
>> standard 3.5" EIDE ATA drive - I have installed a 250GB one) is called 
>> "LAN.Server" it's built in China by a company whose website is 
>> www.sprinter dot com.cn although I don't know if the company name actually 
>> is sprinter - more likely it's something in Chinese that I can't write 
>> let a alone pronounce I guess.
> 
> Just to digress a little, I can't find any reference to a NAS Case at 
> the quoted site - only POS printers.  I'm interested in some kind of NAS 
> device for network storage, so perhaps you could point me at the right 
> place.
> 
> Thanx heaps
> Kev
> 

Hi Kev,

   I bought this on eBAY - it appears there from a couple of different 
importers. There is not specific reference to the NAS case - I think 
it's listed as HDD8 or something, but then there's no further info - 
I've sent an e-mail to the company to ask what's happening with their 
website - I'll let you know what (if anything) I get back.

   As you will have probably seen from my earlier posts, there are some 
"network attached storage" devices that are not servers and only work 
through some proprietry windows and MAC only drivers, you need to keep 
clear of these. They have the advantage that the drive can be formatted 
as NTFS - so avoiding the maximum file size of 4GB restriction of FAT32 
that the others including this model uses.

Here's a list of options from eBAY:

http://search.ebay dot com dot au/search/search.dll?from=R40&satitle=NAS

The ones that are listed as Ritmo Lan.Server are the same as I have but 
with a 250GB drive already installed (at a good price). If you have your 
own drive then look at the ones in the list that start NAS - EXT 3.5".

The one from "gadgetzone" despite what it says, appears to eb a Windows 
only NAS.

Cheers/2

Ed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   7 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:38:05 +1100
From:  "David Forrester" <davidfor at internode.on dot net>
Subject:  Re:  OT: Better VOIP QOS adapter than a Netcomm V300

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:23:52 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:

>Hi, I know this is off-topic for OS/2 but ...
>
>Is anyone using VOIP like me for cheap calls on a broadband connection ?
>
>I've been using the Netcomm V300 router / VOIP adapter with QoS for a 
>while and while it does a great job on keeping VOIP quality good when 
>compared to using Sipura 2000 ATAs - It does clamp throughput of all 
>traffic down to 4Mb/s.
>
>My set up is Telstra cable modem --> WRT54G WiFi AP and router (also 
>does the Telstra logon) ---> Netcomm V300 VOIP Router ---> 100 Mb/s LAN 
>switch ---> PCs.
>
>The V300 does not have Telstra cable login capabilities, so I can't put 
>it first after the cable modem which in principal from a QoS point of 
>view is where it should be. When I use WiFi from my laptop, it's true 
>it's stealing some of the capacity from the VOIP/QoS system but it's 
>rare that I use the phone and WiFi at the same time.
>
>In principal 4Mb/s download from the internet isn't bad - except I'm on 
>the 17Mb/s plan and hence paying for something I'm not getting to the PCs.
>
>As an aside - there is also now rumours that Telstra will be upgrading 
>the speed on the cable network, once all analogue Foxtel subscribers are 
>removed by the end of the month and apparently they could increase the 
>speed as high as 120Mb/s - they are likely to increase it to a higher 
>speed than ADSL 2+ (or 3 or whatever comes) and market cable as the 
>"must have" technology ahead of ADSL as they feel they are being "ripped 
>off" by competitors undercutting their prices while using their lines 
>and in some cases their ADSL termination devices in the exchanges. Cable 
>is totally Telstra owned and they don't have to let other competitors 
>onto it.
>
>Back to the real problem - this slow down to traffic from the V300 also 
>affects how fast I can print to my network attached Brother MFC 620CN as 
>that has to be attached between the WiFi router and the V300 so that it 
>can be accessed both from WiFi and from cabled LAN (the V300 won't allow 
>print traffic from the internet to the internal side despite the fact 
>that I opened the required ports - or could be simply that the Wifi 
>connection doesn't know about the backwards route - either way it wont 
>work).
>
>Netcomm and MyNetPhone (who supplied this device) keep suggesting that 
>the 4Mb/s cap may be lifted in future firmware versions but nothing has 
>happenned so I'm considering replacing the unit with another make that 
>doesn't have this issue. It'd be great if I could also find a VOIP 
>router that support Telstra cable logon and even WiFi !
>
>Any ideas ??
>

I haven't looked into VOIP yet but so I can't directly help you.  But
wander over to Whirlpool <http://www.whirlpool dot net dot au/>.  There are a
lot of people there discussing this.  It would also be the place to ask
how to get the most out of your existing hardware.
--
David Forrester
davidfor at internode.on dot net
http://www.os2world dot com/djfos2/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   8 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:16:48 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Samba vs IBM Lan client

Ed Durrant wrote:
> Kev wrote:
>> Ed Durrant wrote:
>>
>>>  By the way, for a bit of background, the cheap NAS case (takes a 
>>> standard 3.5" EIDE ATA drive - I have installed a 250GB one) is 
>>> called "LAN.Server" it's built in China by a company whose website is 
>>> www.sprinter dot com.cn although I don't know if the company name 
>>> actually is sprinter - more likely it's something in Chinese that I 
>>> can't write let a alone pronounce I guess.
>>
>> Just to digress a little, I can't find any reference to a NAS Case at 
>> the quoted site - only POS printers.  I'm interested in some kind of 
>> NAS device for network storage, so perhaps you could point me at the 
>> right place.
>>
>> Thanx heaps
>> Kev
>>
> 
> Hi Kev,
> 
>   I bought this on eBAY - it appears there from a couple of different 
> importers. There is not specific reference to the NAS case - I think 
> it's listed as HDD8 or something, but then there's no further info - 
> I've sent an e-mail to the company to ask what's happening with their 
> website - I'll let you know what (if anything) I get back.
> 
>   As you will have probably seen from my earlier posts, there are some 
> "network attached storage" devices that are not servers and only work 
> through some proprietry windows and MAC only drivers, you need to keep 
> clear of these. They have the advantage that the drive can be formatted 
> as NTFS - so avoiding the maximum file size of 4GB restriction of FAT32 
> that the others including this model uses.
> 
> Here's a list of options from eBAY:
> 
> http://search.ebay dot com dot au/search/search.dll?from=R40&satitle=NAS
> 
> The ones that are listed as Ritmo Lan.Server are the same as I have but 
> with a 250GB drive already installed (at a good price). If you have your 
> own drive then look at the ones in the list that start NAS - EXT 3.5".
> 
> The one from "gadgetzone" despite what it says, appears to eb a Windows 
> only NAS.
> 
> 
> Cheers/2
> 
> Ed.
 
> 
> 

> 
Another link to hand book drivers and firmware (I think):

ftp://satotech.serveftp dot com/Ritmo/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   9 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:59:54 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:   Firefox 2.01 - BEWARE !

Someone here (I think) suggested going to FF/2 2.01 is a good move as 
it's more stable.

I find exactly the opposite. It locks up the sytem so that only a CAD 
releases it and sometimes causes a TRAP0000 in OS2KRNL.

I would not recommend upgrading to this version, in fact I'm going to 
downgrade back to v 2.0

Cheers/2

Ed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   10 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:43:35 +1100 (AEDT)
From:  "John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Firefox 2.01 - BEWARE !

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:59:54 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote:

>Someone here (I think) suggested going to FF/2 2.01 is a good move as 
>it's more stable.
>
>I find exactly the opposite. It locks up the sytem so that only a CAD 
>releases it and sometimes causes a TRAP0000 in OS2KRNL.
>
>I would not recommend upgrading to this version, in fact I'm going to 
>downgrade back to v 2.0
>
>
>Cheers/2
>
>Ed.

> 

>

Hi Ed.

Yes, that was me recommending FF 2.001

Sorry, I had vastly more problems with 2.0GA than with either the 2.0RC2 or
the 2.001 release.

So we will have to say 
a) alwyas set up your MOZ-PROFILE and MOZ_HOME structure separate from your
FF installations
and
b) as per the readme, always do a fresh install for each version

thus allowing you to switch back and forth for testing.

I found I could switch between 1.509 and the two of v2 with separate
program objects, and the inbuilt version-checking was always very good.

Then we have to say YMMV.

Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or 
talldad at kepl dot com dot au
___________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------