|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Page 26 of 30 [441 Posts]
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:
Previous
1,
2,
3,
...,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30
Next
|
| Author |
Message |
Peter T. Breuer
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 1222
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Is it possible to forward broadcast packets between different subnets without using brdge ?!
|
|
|
SatSpy <vkwireless@hi.t-com.hr> wrote:
| Quote: | Netbios, games, etc....
For example , if I create game on 192.168.1.x subnet, I want that game to be
visible in ingame lan browser on the other subnets too ( 192.168.2.x, etc ).
That's the case when game does not have option to connect to IP address
directly ( Battlefield2 for example in offline mode ).
|
Err .. and what stops you bridging those two subnets? Are you saying
that the game does not route? That it does some kind of broadcast?
Well, change the subnet broadcast mask ...
Peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alan Adams
*nix forums addict
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 64
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Is it possible to forward broadcast packets between different subnets without using brdge ?!
|
|
|
In message <dmvqfp$46k$1@ss405.t-com.hr>
"SatSpy" <vkwireless@hi.t-com.hr> wrote:
| Quote: | Netbios, games, etc....
For example , if I create game on 192.168.1.x subnet, I want that game to be
visible in ingame lan browser on the other subnets too ( 192.168.2.x, etc ).
That's the case when game does not have option to connect to IP address
directly ( Battlefield2 for example in offline mode ).
|
If you have control over the subnets, make them into one.
192.168.1.0 and 192.168.2.0 are only different networks if the subnet mask
is 255.255.0.0.
If you make the mask 255.255.255.0 they become part of one network. The
broadcasts them pass between all systems.
You do have to alter the mask on every connected interface. (Or if you know
exactly what you are doing, it is possible to use different masks in
different places, but debugging problems gets VERY interesting. For example
some routing protocols ca cope, some can't.)
| Quote: |
Thanks !
"Andre Kostur" <nntpspam@kostur.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97227E2356FE8nntpspamkosturnet@207.35.177.134...
"SatSpy" <vkwireless@hi.t-com.hr> wrote in news:dmt1do$co2$1@ss405.t-
com.hr:
Thanks !
Why would you want to? What's the actual problem you're trying to solve?
|
--
Alan Adams
alan.adams@orchard-way.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.nckc.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre Kostur
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Is it possible to forward broadcast packets between different subnets without using brdge ?!
|
|
|
Alan Adams <alan.adams@orchard-way.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:e6ac32d44d.Alan.Adams@orchard-way.freeserve.co.uk:
| Quote: | In message <dmvqfp$46k$1@ss405.t-com.hr
"SatSpy" <vkwireless@hi.t-com.hr> wrote:
Netbios, games, etc....
For example , if I create game on 192.168.1.x subnet, I want that
game to be visible in ingame lan browser on the other subnets too (
192.168.2.x, etc ). That's the case when game does not have option to
connect to IP address directly ( Battlefield2 for example in offline
mode ).
If you have control over the subnets, make them into one.
192.168.1.0 and 192.168.2.0 are only different networks if the subnet
mask is 255.255.0.0.
|
Uh, don't you mean 255.255.255.0?
| Quote: | If you make the mask 255.255.255.0 they become part of one network.
The broadcasts them pass between all systems.
|
Er... 255.255.0.0 .... I think you got them reversed...
| Quote: | You do have to alter the mask on every connected interface. (Or if you
know exactly what you are doing, it is possible to use different masks
in different places, but debugging problems gets VERY interesting. For
example some routing protocols ca cope, some can't.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HASM
*nix forums addict
Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:00 am Post subject:
Re: Is it possible to forward broadcast packets between different subnets without using brdge ?!
|
|
|
Andre Kostur <nntpspam@kostur.net> writes:
| Quote: | 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.2.0 are only different networks if the subnet
mask is 255.255.0.0.
Uh, don't you mean 255.255.255.0?
|
I think he did mean 255.255.255.0
| Quote: |
If you make the mask 255.255.255.0 they become part of one network.
The broadcasts them pass between all systems.
Er... 255.255.0.0 .... I think you got them reversed...
|
That would work, but isn't 255.255.252.0 enough to bridge x.x.2.0 and
x.x.1.0?
-- HASM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andre Kostur
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:05 am Post subject:
Re: Is it possible to forward broadcast packets between different subnets without using brdge ?!
|
|
|
HASM <not_really@comcast.net> wrote in news:m3hd9oh0px.fsf@127.0.0.1:
| Quote: | Andre Kostur <nntpspam@kostur.net> writes:
If you make the mask 255.255.255.0 they become part of one network.
The broadcasts them pass between all systems.
Er... 255.255.0.0 .... I think you got them reversed...
That would work, but isn't 255.255.252.0 enough to bridge x.x.2.0 and
x.x.1.0?
|
Yep... I just didn't want to get into the complexity of CIDR subnet
masks... figured it would be easier to stick to class C vs. class B
addressing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Adams
*nix forums addict
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 64
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Is it possible to forward broadcast packets between different subnets without using brdge ?!
|
|
|
In message <m3hd9oh0px.fsf@127.0.0.1>
HASM <not_really@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Andre Kostur <nntpspam@kostur.net> writes:
192.168.1.0 and 192.168.2.0 are only different networks if the subnet
mask is 255.255.0.0.
Uh, don't you mean 255.255.255.0?
I think he did mean 255.255.255.0
|
So I did.
| Quote: |
If you make the mask 255.255.255.0 they become part of one network.
The broadcasts them pass between all systems.
Er... 255.255.0.0 .... I think you got them reversed...
That would work, but isn't 255.255.252.0 enough to bridge x.x.2.0 and
x.x.1.0?
|
It is, for the same reason I got it wrong above.
I can only be sure I've got netmasks right if I write them and the addresses
down in binary, and I didn't take the time.
The requirement is that all the bits of the addresses which are different
must be on the host part of the address, which is where the netmask has
0's. In that case, when all the network bits match, the networks are the
same, i.e. one network.
192 168 1 x
11000000 10110000 00000001 xxxxxxxx
192 168 2 x
11000000 10110000 00000010 xxxxxxxx
255 255 252 0
11111111 11111111 11111100 00000000
This shows that the third byte of 252 is enough. The resulting network has
1022 legal addresses - 192.168.3.255 is the broadcast address, and
192.168.0.0 is the network number, both reserved.
Let's hope I got it right this time!
Alan
--
Alan Adams
alan.adams@orchard-way.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.nckc.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nico Kadel-Garcia
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 1068
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:51 am Post subject:
Re: What to install first linux10 or win2000
|
|
|
"Reinhard Gimbel" <reinhard@dragonfly7.de> wrote in message
news:dodk3p$n64$1@online.de...
| Quote: |
Hello community !
toby989@hotpop.com wrote:
Starting out with one blank unpartitioned 40GB hard disk, what do I
install first, MS Win 2000 or Suse Linux 10?
Assuming a linux installation media with rescue portion -- like SUSE
Linux -- I would first boot linux rescue to do all the partiton stuff (one
NTFS partition, one FAT32/VFAT partition, one swap partition and one Linux
partition).
|
Given that a Linux install takes less than an hour with all the updates on a
fast connection, and a Windows takes many hours of key-pressing,
mind-numbing tedium making you hit stupid keys for licenses and update
permissions, and tends to stomp on Linux, do the Windows first, I'd do the
Windows first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Perry
*nix forums addict
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject:
Re: NFS permissions
|
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:56:42 -0500, Ken K wrote:
| Quote: | I've exhausted myself with Googling for a few days and I'm normally pretty
good about figuring things out. However, I'm having a problem with NFSv3
and permissions to the mounts.
The dilemna: I can mount the NFS system, but only root has access to it.
|
I have NFS version 3 services running on Debian Testing which I then
mount on SuSE boxes. Lets see what my /etc/exports on Debian Testing says...
/smallass/documents 192.168.1.0/24(rw)
/smallass/mp3s 192.168.1.0/24(rw)
If I mount either of the exports, here is how it looks on SuSE 10...
mperry@foobar:~> sudo mount orion:/smallass/mp3s /mp3s
mperry@foobar:~> cd /mp3s/
mperry@foobar:/mp3s> touch test
mperry@foobar:/mp3s> ls -l test
-rw-r--r-- 1 mperry users 0 2005-12-24 14:23 test
Now if I look at the results of the mount command on my suse laptop...
orion:/smallass/mp3s on /mp3s type nfs (rw,addr=192.168.1.50)
So I can touch files, edit files, and delete files as a non-root user on
this particular nfs share pretty easily.
That's about all I did to get things working. I don't know if it makes
differences or not, but the debian box is running XFS file systems and my
SuSE laptop is on reiserfs.
HtH somewhat.
--
Michael Perry | Do or do not. There is no try --Master Yoda
mperry@lnxpowered.org | http://www.lnxpowered.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken K
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject:
Re: NFS permissions
|
|
|
<chomp>
I resolved the issue. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, a reboot made
everything work as expected. I hated using an MS solution. Most of this
thread responded to the alt.os.linux.gentoo thread as I had put that as my
followup-to header. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Perry
*nix forums addict
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:45 am Post subject:
Re: What to install first linux10 or win2000
|
|
|
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:13:00 +0000 (UTC), Keith Willcocks wrote:
| Quote: |
"JohnK" <johnk.dev.null@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q6CdnT0E5uaiODfeRVny1Q@pipex.net...
Keith Willcocks wrote:
I installed Windows XP and Suse 10. Suse took considerably longer to
install than Windows, more like twice the time.
So you didn't install AV, firewall, SP2, all the updates, Office, hardware
drivers and all the other things required before you can do anything in
Windows then?
My XP took about 2 days to get everything set up. SUSE took 4 hours in
total.
Windows included SP2. Virus scanner was AVG - took about three minutes,
Zonealarm firewall - about 5. The updates came down in less time than
those for Suse 10. I couldn't believe how long the first two of the four
CDs for Suse took. Even if you add 10 minutes for installing Office (as
Suse already includes its equivalent) Suse still took far longer.
Incidentally, this was on my "messabout" computer and I have done it more
than once with the same timescales.
|
My own experince with SuSE 10 varies whether I have the DVD or CD install
media. With Windows XP, I've got things down to about 3 hours give or
take a reboot. With SuSE, I can get a install done in about an hour but
the updating thing takes a bit of time. On CD all bets are off and I've
had numerous files on SuSE 10 that will not install correctly off the CD
media.
The OpenOffice updates are rather significant on SuSE 10. Getting the
goodies installed on XP that I like to have also take awhile. With
Windows XP though, usually installing one update triggers another 3 that
seem to hotfix an issue with the original hotfix. This causes update
exhaustion on my part with XP. Now the new updater also downloads MS
Office upgrades. Those are rather significant in size by themselves.
My fastest setups are installing Debian Etch servers that may end
up doing a few things like backup, web, mail. The slowest thing I have
ever seen is when W2kPRo formats a new drive. Perhaps its transmitting
all my financial information back to Redmond or something :)
--
Michael Perry | Do or do not. There is no try --Master Yoda
mperry@lnxpowered.org | http://www.lnxpowered.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nico Kadel-Garcia
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 1068
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:23 am Post subject:
Re: Moving harddisk with Linux installation to a different machine.
|
|
|
<linuxquestion@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135914057.377284.280590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I would like to:
- buy another machine
- just take the second hard drive out of the first
- install the harddrive into the second machine
- configure grub in the new machine for dual boot
I'm thinking that the machine will be a different:
CPU, memory, video card, usb ports, firewire ports,
CD/DVD drives, etc.
|
I've done it. You will want to think carefully about how your partitions are
set up, and about where you put your grub, and about where the second disk
will go. For example, some IDE controllers get very confused with Linux and
LILO or grub and can keep telling you that /dev/hdc is really /dev/hda,
because they reverse the order of drives listed for various reasons. It's
easy to work out, but you want a good installation or rescue CD around for
dealing with it.
The big switch that would kill you is going from an x86 processor to an
x86_64 CPU, namely the very nice AMD 64-bit processors. The old kernel and
hardware should *work* as long as you didn't custom-compile the kernel to
death and throw out too many drivers, and the old i686 or i586 kernel should
work with the 64-bit CPU running in its emulation mode, but you'll lose all
that nifty performance.
The second big switch is the problem with any new machine: are its
components really Linux compatible, alone and in combination? A machine that
is known to work, listed at a reputable Linux website should be very stable
and reliable for both Windows and Linux.
| Quote: | Is this possible, and easy enough to do?
From the Linux install CD, can you install grub
by itself onto the MBR? And nothing else?
And then edit the grub.conf file? This configuration
is too big for a floppy.
|
Yes, most rescue or install CD's with rescue options will find and mount the
available disks, say at /mnt/sysimage: then you can edit the
/mnt/sysimage/etc/fstab and /mnt/sysimage/etc/mtab as needed, edit
/mnt/sysimage/boot/grub/grub.conf as needed, and do a "chroot /mnt/sysimage
grub-instll /dev/hda" or wherever you want the MBR stashed. I've written
scripts to do exactly this sort of thing for network installations of Linux,
for approximately 15,000 machines (including test machines and some that had
to be replaced or done twice).
| Quote: | My spider senses, and experience with Linux,
tells me that this will not be as easy as it seems.
|
Practice makes it easier, but you seem to have a handle on the basics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Heiming
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 1423
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:38 am Post subject:
Re: Moving harddisk with Linux installation to a different machine.
|
|
|
[ Followup-To -> comp.os.linux.misc ]
In alt.os.linux linuxquestion@yahoo.com:
[ RH AS 3.0 ]
| Quote: | The linux partitions and installation are on the second hard drive.
There is also a backup partition for XP in the first 25 gigs
of the secondary.
I would like to:
- buy another machine
- just take the second hard drive out of the first
- install the harddrive into the second machine
- configure grub in the new machine for dual boot
I'm thinking that the machine will be a different:
CPU, memory, video card, usb ports, firewire ports,
CD/DVD drives, etc.
|
Doesn't matter, kudzu should come up and ask you to accept
changes it found.
Though this doesn't work with doze, you need to reinstall. It's
not flexible enough to allow changing the system.
| Quote: | Is this possible, and easy enough to do?
|
Just boot from the first install CD, enter "Linux rescue" and
follow what the screen messages tell you, correct your bootloader
config if needed and rewrite the boot sector, "grub-install
/dev/hda" or wherever it is now, 'fdisk -l' should tell and you
should be set (Presuming "Labels" are used in fstab to mount
partitions).
Good luck
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 334: 50% of the manual is in .pdf readme files |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrique Perez-Terron
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 537
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:45 am Post subject:
Re: Moving harddisk with Linux installation to a different machine.
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:40:57 +0100, <linuxquestion@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Dear experts,
Now that I have spent a LOT of time (entire weekends) installing
Linux, a newer kernel (2.4.21), Oracle 9i, and all the patches,
I am thinking of getting a new machine.
Currently, the machine is an XP/LInux dual boot.
(Redhat Advanced Server 3.0)
The linux partitions and installation are on the second hard drive.
There is also a backup partition for XP in the first 25 gigs
of the secondary.
I would like to:
- buy another machine
- just take the second hard drive out of the first
- install the harddrive into the second machine
- configure grub in the new machine for dual boot
I'm thinking that the machine will be a different:
CPU, memory, video card, usb ports, firewire ports,
CD/DVD drives, etc.
Is this possible, and easy enough to do?
|
People are doing it all the time and generally it works perfectly.
There is at least one way it can fail, though: The new hardware may
not (yet) be suppoted by the kernel on the hard disk.
In most cases you will still be able to boot the computer, but perhaps
not be able to start X, so you would be stuck with console mode until a
sufficiently capable kernel is installed. If you know what kernel modules
and versions you need, you may be able to download and install a new
kernel before moving the disk over.
You are using a 2.4 kernel, and I just don't know how much support for
newer hw has been backported to 2.4 kernels. Be aware that you can have
multiple kernels installed. You could have a recent 2.6 kernel on the
disk before the move. But do google to find out if the hw you want to
buy is supported yet. (Hey, everyone, is there any problem with
Redhat glibc/tls/nptl and 2.6 kernels? I believe the 2.6 kernel runs
older libc stuff just fine.)
| Quote: | From the Linux install CD, can you install grub
by itself onto the MBR? And nothing else?
And then edit the grub.conf file? This configuration
is too big for a floppy.
|
What is too big? The kernel? Yes, that is true. But if the new
computer has a floppy drive you can prepare a grub floppy, and then
you are almost sure to manage to setup the mbr properly afer the move.
(A grub floppy does not contain the kernel, etc, it just contains
grub's stage1 and stage2 files. Booting from it you get a command
prompt that enables you to query the disks, search for files across
partitions, set up the MBR or a partition boot record, invoke a
config file with boot stanzas, edit the stanzas before using them
(but not save the changes to the file), and/or boot specifying your
own boot commands.)
However, floppies are not in vogue anymore. They tend to be left out
from newer computers. It is also possible to setup a Grub CD, but I
have never done that.
Notice, as will be evident from the points below, that running a Grub
CD is not the same thing as running Grub under a Linux Rescue CD or a
Knoppix Live CD.
| Quote: | My spider senses, and experience with Linux, tells me that this will notbe as easy as it seems.
|
You are right. Grub has a problem determining the right order that the
Bios will enumerate the disks. With a grub floppy, it's easy, you can
use grub to query the disks, and see what number the disks have. Just
use the "find" command while running Grub natively (i.e.not under a Linux
kernel).
If there is only one disk, it is easy too, the disk will be number zero.
Say (hd0) to grub. The problem arises when you run grub under Linux to
setup the mbr. Then grub has no way of talking to the bios, it has to
access the disks through the Linux kernel. If you specify a particular
disk to boot from in the Bios setup, the Bios takes that disk out of the
regular order and places it first, so Grub will see it as (hd0). There
is no way Grub can find out that while running Linux. Otherwise, the
standard IDE disks always get enumerated hda, hdb, hdc, hdd, but missing
disks are skipped, so if hdb is not present, hdc will get the number
after hda. Other disks could come before or after, depending on details
in the Bios of the computer and the Bios extensions in installed (or
on-board) controllers. Again something hard for Grub to know.
If you know the disk is going to be (hd0) on the new computer, while it
is /dev/hdc under linux on the old computer, I believe you can create a
"device.map" file in /boot/grub, where you specify "(hd0) /dev/hdc", and
then run "grub-install /dev/hdc", still under linux, to have the mbr of
the disk set up for the coming configuration. This will not affect the
mbr of /dev/hda, so you should still be able to boot OK on the old
computer. It's like having two pointers to the same area, and the
/dev/hda mbr is used when booting the old computer. The next step is to
edit /boot/grub/menu.lst or */grub.conf (depending on which distro you
have). This file is shared by the two boot paths, and will be correct
for only one of them at the time. But if it is incorrect, you still get
Grub itself loaded during boot, and can give Grub commands to bypass the
incorrect config file. (You can even have two config files, and 1)
specify a non-standard config filename to grub-install, and 2) you can
also say, eg., "configfile (hd0)/grub/newgrub.conf" at the grub prompt
after it fails to boot using an incorrect config file.)
Yet another idea is to have a double set of boot stanzas in the
grub config file. The only thing that fails then, should be the splash
image file. You can't have two paths for it. Expect an uglier boot
menu. Consider using the "fallback" statement in the config file.
(I have never used it.)
Caveat: Few people spend their days rearranging boot disks all the day,
and neither do I. Everything here is kind-of fragile, subject to
misunderstandings or incorrect memories on my part. I have done some
experimenting with Grub, read some of the code, received helpfull
corrections when I have said something wrong here in the ng, etc,
but still the chances of making mistakes are good. I don't have access
to all the possible hw combinations either. The Grub documentation is
notoriously unclear, although it is improving, and it tries to be verbose.
I would like to hear about your experiences, because I am considering
writing something about it, if I can collect enough experiences and
testimonials (bad ones too, but explained and understood ones better).
-Enrique |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ray
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1127
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:24 pm Post subject:
Re: mandrake mandriva, SuSE SUSE NOVEL
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:33:31 +0200, John Jay Smith wrote:
| Quote: | I am lost....
mandrake became mandriva? and why?
|
God knows! I seen some claims that there was threatened copyright
infringement from heirs of the creator of 'Mandrake the Magician' - sounds
a little specious to me. At any rate, it was after the 'merger' with
another Linux distribution, Connectiva, which contributed the 'iva'
| Quote: | There is only mandriva now?
|
Correct. Except, they merged with Lycoris not too long ago, so expect
"Mandrivoris" any time now.
| Quote: |
SuSE became SUSE and why?
So we will have only SUSE?
|
SuSE was taken from the abbreviation of the German corporation which
founded it. I believe they thought that all capital letters would be more
consistent and easier for folks to remember.
| Quote: |
what about Novel Linux?
|
Novell bought SUSE.
| Quote: |
and there is something called OPEN SUSE
|
See also, the origins of 'Fedora' from RedHat - it's pretty much the same
thing. Open SUSE is, as I understand it, the free, developmental branch of
the commercial product.
| Quote: |
what is that.... ???
Instead of making thigs easier for people they are mixing things up!
|
I really don't find it that confusing. Suggest you follow the news
regularly at www.distrowatch.com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Renan
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:24 am Post subject:
Re: mandrake mandriva, SuSE SUSE NOVEL
|
|
|
escreveu no grupo alt.comp.freeware:
| Quote: | Why am I a troll? How can I be a troll? I am downloading mandriva 2006 final
at this moment
|
Because you are crossposting to 5 groups without setting a Followup-to.
--
Thanks, Renan(tm) - Canoas, RS, Brazil
"Smoking: a foul disease. Usually cured by cancer." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
Page 26 of 30 [441 Posts]
|
Goto page:
Previous
1,
2,
3,
...,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30
Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
The time now is Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:20 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Movie stars | Bankruptcy Certification | Life Insurance | Magic the Gathering | Discount Magazine Subscriptions
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
*nix
»
Linux
»
Setup
