On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:31:33 -0700, Adam wrote:

>
> Going through an old Linux book's "Checking Your Ethernet Connection"
> section, I find that my Ubuntu box is failing the "Can your PC reach
> other PC(s) on the LAN?" ping test ...
>
> 1) Both Ubuntu box and Win98SE box can ping the router/DHCP server.
> 2) Both Ubuntu box and Win98SE box can access the internet.
> 3) Win98SE box can ping Ubuntu box but
> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
>
> For troubleshooting, the book suggests to verify that ...
>
> 1) the DNS server is accessible
> 2) the names and addresses of Win98SE are in /etc/hosts files
>
> In Ubuntu's "Network Settings" dialog, the following IP
> addresses ...
>
> 1) 68.94.156.1
> 2) 68.94.157.1
>
> are listed as DNS Servers under the DNS tab. But, Win98SE disables DNS.
> How were these IP addresses added? FYI, my home network uses a
> router/DHCP server.
>
>
> ================================================== =======================
>
> "/etc/resolv.conf" contains ...
>
> nameserver 68.94.156.1
> nameserver 68.94.157.1
>
>
> ================================================== =======================
>
> "/etc/dhcp3/dhclient.conf" contains ...
>
> # Configuration file for /sbin/dhclient, which is included in Debian's
> # dhcp3-client package.
> #
> # This is a sample configuration file for dhclient. See dhclient.conf's
> # man page for more information about the syntax of this file
> # and a more comprehensive list of the parameters understood by
> # dhclient.
> #
> # Normally, if the DHCP server provides reasonable information and does
> # not leave anything out (like the domain name, for example), then
> # few changes must be made to this file, if any.
> #
>
> send host-name "";
> #send dhcp-client-identifier 1:0:a0:24:ab:fb:9c;
> #send dhcp-lease-time 3600;
> #supersede domain-name "fugue.com home.vix.com";
> #prepend domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1;
> request subnet-mask, broadcast-address, time-offset, routers,
> domain-name, domain-name-servers, host-name,
> netbios-name-servers, netbios-scope;
> #require subnet-mask, domain-name-servers;
> timeout 30;
> #retry 60;
> #reboot 10;
> #select-timeout 5;
> #initial-interval 2;
> #script "/etc/dhcp3/dhclient-script";
> #media "-link0 -link1 -link2", "link0 link1";
> #reject 192.33.137.209;
>
> #alias {
> # interface "eth0";
> # fixed-address 192.5.5.213;
> # option subnet-mask 255.255.255.255;
> #}
>
> #lease {
> # interface "eth0";
> # fixed-address 192.33.137.200;
> # medium "link0 link1";
> # option host-name "andare.swiftmedia.com";
> # option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
> # option broadcast-address 192.33.137.255;
> # option routers 192.33.137.250;
> # option domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1;
> # renew 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
> # rebind 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
> # expire 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
> #}
>
>
> ================================================== =======================
>
> Is this problem related to ...
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...ger/+bug/92761
>
> What do I need to do to make Ubuntu box successfully ping Win98SE box?

I don't know about Win98SE, but some versions of Windows are configured
not to respond to "ping" requests. It sounds like your network
configuration is OK, and I suspect this is a Windows configuration problem.

I am currently wrangling an XP computer on my office network. I KNOW my
office LAN is working properly, but for some reason, the XP box refuses to
talk to any of the other devices using the standard Windows procedures,
respond to "pings", etc.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

MarkA wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:31:33 -0700, Adam wrote:
>>
>> What do I need to do to make Ubuntu box successfully ping Win98SE box?

Lose the Win98SE?
'95, 98, and ME were the sorriest excuses for Windows, (EVER), so going
to 2000 Pro or XP (Not Vista) might make things a bit happier.
>
> I don't know about Win98SE, but some versions of Windows are configured
> not to respond to "ping" requests. It sounds like your network
> configuration is OK, and I suspect this is a Windows configuration problem.

This has been a 10 years and counting security defaults with windows of
all types. Either the security is off by default, or on the wrong way
and windows tells me neat things like "Find your system Administrator".
>
> I am currently wrangling an XP computer on my office network. I KNOW my
> office LAN is working properly, but for some reason, the XP box refuses to
> talk to any of the other devices using the standard Windows procedures,
> respond to "pings", etc.
>
I suspect it is a windows default thing, as this has been going on ever
since windows '95 (Belch). Microsoft sets defaults and then has a bad
habit of not telling you what they are, but of course we can all go
spend $20-$50 to buy an IT Administrators' book.

Since this is an Ubuntu group I would hope that everyone here is smart
enough to know that compatibility with windows '95/98/ME is not a big
priority. Ping is an Internet utility and should have no concern whether
the machine is windows 3.1, '95.....Vista, UNIX, MAC, or whatever.

Hope you get it resolved.
Bill Baka

MarkA wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:31:33 -0700, Adam wrote:
>
>> Going through an old Linux book's "Checking Your Ethernet Connection"
>> section, I find that my Ubuntu box is failing the "Can your PC reach
>> other PC(s) on the LAN?" ping test ...
>>
>> 1) Both Ubuntu box and Win98SE box can ping the router/DHCP server.
>> 2) Both Ubuntu box and Win98SE box can access the internet.
>> 3) Win98SE box can ping Ubuntu box but
>> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
>>
>> For troubleshooting, the book suggests to verify that ...
>>
>> 1) the DNS server is accessible
>> 2) the names and addresses of Win98SE are in /etc/hosts files
>>
>> In Ubuntu's "Network Settings" dialog, the following IP
>> addresses ...
>>
>> 1) 68.94.156.1
>> 2) 68.94.157.1
>>
>> are listed as DNS Servers under the DNS tab. But, Win98SE disables DNS.
>> How were these IP addresses added? FYI, my home network uses a
>> router/DHCP server.
>>
>>
>> ================================================== =======================
>>
>> "/etc/resolv.conf" contains ...
>>
>> nameserver 68.94.156.1
>> nameserver 68.94.157.1
>>
>>
>> ================================================== =======================
>>
>> "/etc/dhcp3/dhclient.conf" contains ...
>>
>> # Configuration file for /sbin/dhclient, which is included in Debian's
>> # dhcp3-client package.
>> #
>> # This is a sample configuration file for dhclient. See dhclient.conf's
>> # man page for more information about the syntax of this file
>> # and a more comprehensive list of the parameters understood by
>> # dhclient.
>> #
>> # Normally, if the DHCP server provides reasonable information and does
>> # not leave anything out (like the domain name, for example), then
>> # few changes must be made to this file, if any.
>> #
>>
>> send host-name "";
>> #send dhcp-client-identifier 1:0:a0:24:ab:fb:9c;
>> #send dhcp-lease-time 3600;
>> #supersede domain-name "fugue.com home.vix.com";
>> #prepend domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1;
>> request subnet-mask, broadcast-address, time-offset, routers,
>> domain-name, domain-name-servers, host-name,
>> netbios-name-servers, netbios-scope;
>> #require subnet-mask, domain-name-servers;
>> timeout 30;
>> #retry 60;
>> #reboot 10;
>> #select-timeout 5;
>> #initial-interval 2;
>> #script "/etc/dhcp3/dhclient-script";
>> #media "-link0 -link1 -link2", "link0 link1";
>> #reject 192.33.137.209;
>>
>> #alias {
>> # interface "eth0";
>> # fixed-address 192.5.5.213;
>> # option subnet-mask 255.255.255.255;
>> #}
>>
>> #lease {
>> # interface "eth0";
>> # fixed-address 192.33.137.200;
>> # medium "link0 link1";
>> # option host-name "andare.swiftmedia.com";
>> # option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
>> # option broadcast-address 192.33.137.255;
>> # option routers 192.33.137.250;
>> # option domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1;
>> # renew 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
>> # rebind 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
>> # expire 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
>> #}
>>
>>
>> ================================================== =======================
>>
>> Is this problem related to ...
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...ger/+bug/92761
>>
>> What do I need to do to make Ubuntu box successfully ping Win98SE box?
>
> I don't know about Win98SE, but some versions of Windows are configured
> not to respond to "ping" requests. It sounds like your network
> configuration is OK, and I suspect this is a Windows configuration problem.
>
> I am currently wrangling an XP computer on my office network. I KNOW my
> office LAN is working properly, but for some reason, the XP box refuses to
> talk to any of the other devices using the standard Windows procedures,
> respond to "pings", etc.
>

Found the reason why ...

>> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box

thanks to the following excellent thread ...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
by Stormbringer.

It turns out that ZoneAlarm was silently blocking it.
[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605&page=3]
I'll have to find out how to unsilence ZoneAlarm once silenced.

After going through the old Linux book, which supports Win9x.
It got me thinking ... now why wouldn't Win9x work if it worked with
older versions of Linux? At least, most of the older stuff should work.

I find that the problem is usually with the new additions/changes, not
with what has been working for years. Though little tweaks may be
necessary for the new stuff. Good Luck!!! ;p

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:56:32 -0700, Bill Baka wrote:

> MarkA wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:31:33 -0700, Adam wrote:
>>>
>>> What do I need to do to make Ubuntu box successfully ping Win98SE box?
>
> Lose the Win98SE?
> '95, 98, and ME were the sorriest excuses for Windows, (EVER), so going
> to 2000 Pro or XP (Not Vista) might make things a bit happier.

I already gave Adam that bit of advice. If you MUST use Windows, use XP.

>>
>> I don't know about Win98SE, but some versions of Windows are configured
>> not to respond to "ping" requests. It sounds like your network
>> configuration is OK, and I suspect this is a Windows configuration
>> problem.
>
> This has been a 10 years and counting security defaults with windows of
> all types. Either the security is off by default, or on the wrong way
> and windows tells me neat things like "Find your system Administrator".
>>
>> I am currently wrangling an XP computer on my office network. I KNOW
>> my office LAN is working properly, but for some reason, the XP box
>> refuses to talk to any of the other devices using the standard Windows
>> procedures, respond to "pings", etc.
>>
> I suspect it is a windows default thing, as this has been going on ever
> since windows '95 (Belch). Microsoft sets defaults and then has a bad
> habit of not telling you what they are, but of course we can all go
> spend $20-$50 to buy an IT Administrators' book.
>
> Since this is an Ubuntu group I would hope that everyone here is smart
> enough to know that compatibility with windows '95/98/ME is not a big
> priority. Ping is an Internet utility and should have no concern whether
> the machine is windows 3.1, '95.....Vista, UNIX, MAC, or whatever.
>
> Hope you get it resolved.
> Bill Baka

I suspect that the XP computer in question might be the next one that
mysteriously disappears one night, to be replaced by a shiny new box
running Ubuntu.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

Adam wrote:
> MarkA wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:31:33 -0700, Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Going through an old Linux book's "Checking Your Ethernet Connection"
>>> section, I find that my Ubuntu box is failing the "Can your PC reach
>>> other PC(s) on the LAN?" ping test ...
>>>
>>> 1) Both Ubuntu box and Win98SE box can ping the router/DHCP server.
>>> 2) Both Ubuntu box and Win98SE box can access the internet.
>>> 3) Win98SE box can ping Ubuntu box but
>>> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
>>>
>>> For troubleshooting, the book suggests to verify that ...
>>>
>>> 1) the DNS server is accessible
>>> 2) the names and addresses of Win98SE are in /etc/hosts files
>>>
>>> In Ubuntu's "Network Settings" dialog, the following IP
>>> addresses ...
>>>
>>> 1) 68.94.156.1
>>> 2) 68.94.157.1
>>>
>>> are listed as DNS Servers under the DNS tab. But, Win98SE disables DNS.
>>> How were these IP addresses added? FYI, my home network uses a
>>> router/DHCP server.
>>>
>>>
>>> ================================================== =======================
>>>
>>>
>>> "/etc/resolv.conf" contains ...
>>>
>>> nameserver 68.94.156.1
>>> nameserver 68.94.157.1
>>>
>>>
>>> ================================================== =======================
>>>
>>>
>>> "/etc/dhcp3/dhclient.conf" contains ...
>>>
>>> # Configuration file for /sbin/dhclient, which is included in Debian's
>>> # dhcp3-client package.
>>> #
>>> # This is a sample configuration file for dhclient. See dhclient.conf's
>>> # man page for more information about the syntax of this file
>>> # and a more comprehensive list of the parameters understood by
>>> # dhclient.
>>> #
>>> # Normally, if the DHCP server provides reasonable information and does
>>> # not leave anything out (like the domain name, for example), then
>>> # few changes must be made to this file, if any.
>>> #
>>>
>>> send host-name "";
>>> #send dhcp-client-identifier 1:0:a0:24:ab:fb:9c;
>>> #send dhcp-lease-time 3600;
>>> #supersede domain-name "fugue.com home.vix.com";
>>> #prepend domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1;
>>> request subnet-mask, broadcast-address, time-offset, routers,
>>> domain-name, domain-name-servers, host-name,
>>> netbios-name-servers, netbios-scope;
>>> #require subnet-mask, domain-name-servers;
>>> timeout 30;
>>> #retry 60;
>>> #reboot 10;
>>> #select-timeout 5;
>>> #initial-interval 2;
>>> #script "/etc/dhcp3/dhclient-script";
>>> #media "-link0 -link1 -link2", "link0 link1";
>>> #reject 192.33.137.209;
>>>
>>> #alias {
>>> # interface "eth0";
>>> # fixed-address 192.5.5.213;
>>> # option subnet-mask 255.255.255.255;
>>> #}
>>>
>>> #lease {
>>> # interface "eth0";
>>> # fixed-address 192.33.137.200;
>>> # medium "link0 link1";
>>> # option host-name "andare.swiftmedia.com";
>>> # option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
>>> # option broadcast-address 192.33.137.255;
>>> # option routers 192.33.137.250;
>>> # option domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1;
>>> # renew 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
>>> # rebind 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
>>> # expire 2 2000/1/12 00:00:01;
>>> #}
>>>
>>>
>>> ================================================== =======================
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this problem related to ...
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...ger/+bug/92761
>>>
>>> What do I need to do to make Ubuntu box successfully ping Win98SE box?
>>
>> I don't know about Win98SE, but some versions of Windows are configured
>> not to respond to "ping" requests. It sounds like your network
>> configuration is OK, and I suspect this is a Windows configuration
>> problem.
>>
>> I am currently wrangling an XP computer on my office network. I KNOW my
>> office LAN is working properly, but for some reason, the XP box
>> refuses to
>> talk to any of the other devices using the standard Windows procedures,
>> respond to "pings", etc.
>>
>
> Found the reason why ...
>
> >> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
>
> thanks to the following excellent thread ...
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
> by Stormbringer.
>
> It turns out that ZoneAlarm was silently blocking it.
> [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605&page=3]
> I'll have to find out how to unsilence ZoneAlarm once silenced.
>
> After going through the old Linux book, which supports Win9x.
> It got me thinking ... now why wouldn't Win9x work if it worked with
> older versions of Linux? At least, most of the older stuff should work.
>
> I find that the problem is usually with the new additions/changes, not
> with what has been working for years. Though little tweaks may be
> necessary for the new stuff. Good Luck!!! ;p
>

WOOHOO!!! And, Network Neighborhood seems to work better now.
It shows my Ubuntu box. Not sure whether it's due entirely to the
ZoneAlarm tweak. Can't remember if I made other Samba changes at the
moment. So glad I didn't give up ...

Adam wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>>
>> Found the reason why ...
>>
>> >> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
>>
>> thanks to the following excellent thread ...
>> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
>> by Stormbringer.
>>
>> It turns out that ZoneAlarm was silently blocking it.
>> [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605&page=3]
>> I'll have to find out how to unsilence ZoneAlarm once silenced.

I have Zonealarm on my XP and I have to kill it completely to change
anything on my router. Something about Zonealarm and routers (Linksys
WRT54G's at least) won't play nice. No other program kills the interface
like this and even with all features turned off, the Zonealarm still
blocks any direct router traffic. It sees it, but the screen is so bad
the Zonealarm gets terminated, I do my configuration, then start
Zonealarm over again, or just reboot back to Ubuntu.
>>
>> After going through the old Linux book, which supports Win9x.
>> It got me thinking ... now why wouldn't Win9x work if it worked with
>> older versions of Linux? At least, most of the older stuff should work.
>>
>> I find that the problem is usually with the new additions/changes, not
>> with what has been working for years. Though little tweaks may be
>> necessary for the new stuff. Good Luck!!! ;p
>>
>
> WOOHOO!!! And, Network Neighborhood seems to work better now.
> It shows my Ubuntu box. Not sure whether it's due entirely to the
> ZoneAlarm tweak. Can't remember if I made other Samba changes at the
> moment. So glad I didn't give up ...

If at once you don't........you know the drill, work until 3:00 A.M. and
get it going.
Bill Baka

MarkA wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> I suspect that the XP computer in question might be the next one
> that mysteriously disappears one night, to be replaced by a shiny
> new box running Ubuntu.

You don't need a new computer. A CDRom or DVD will do nicely.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.

Bill Baka wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> I have Zonealarm on my XP and I have to kill it completely to
> change anything on my router. Something about Zonealarm and
> routers (Linksys WRT54G's at least) won't play nice. No other
> program kills the interface like this and even with all features
> turned off, the Zonealarm still blocks any direct router traffic.
> It sees it, but the screen is so bad the Zonealarm gets
> terminated, I do my configuration, then start Zonealarm over
> again, or just reboot back to Ubuntu.

Well, I have had ZoneAlarm 2.4.11 running on my W98 system since
Nov. 2000, with no difficulties.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]:
Try the download section.

Bill Baka wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>> Adam wrote:
>>> Found the reason why ...
>>>
>>> >> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
>>>
>>> thanks to the following excellent thread ...
>>> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
>>> by Stormbringer.
>>>
>>> It turns out that ZoneAlarm was silently blocking it.
>>> [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605&page=3]
>>> I'll have to find out how to unsilence ZoneAlarm once silenced.
>
> I have Zonealarm on my XP and I have to kill it completely to change
> anything on my router. Something about Zonealarm and routers (Linksys
> WRT54G's at least) won't play nice. No other program kills the interface
> like this and even with all features turned off, the Zonealarm still
> blocks any direct router traffic. It sees it, but the screen is so bad
> the Zonealarm gets terminated, I do my configuration, then start
> Zonealarm over again, or just reboot back to Ubuntu.
>

Really? My Linksys router gets along with ZoneAlarm.
Probably because it is listed in the "Trusted Zone" of
ZoneAlarm (Firewall->Zones tab).

Luckily, my network has been stable (requiring little change) for
some years now. So, I haven't had much problems with ZoneAlarm.
Like the saying goes ... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ;p


>
>>> After going through the old Linux book, which supports Win9x.
>>> It got me thinking ... now why wouldn't Win9x work if it worked with
>>> older versions of Linux? At least, most of the older stuff should work.
>>>
>>> I find that the problem is usually with the new additions/changes, not
>>> with what has been working for years. Though little tweaks may be
>>> necessary for the new stuff. Good Luck!!! ;p
>>>
>> WOOHOO!!! And, Network Neighborhood seems to work better now.
>> It shows my Ubuntu box. Not sure whether it's due entirely to the
>> ZoneAlarm tweak. Can't remember if I made other Samba changes at the
>> moment. So glad I didn't give up ...
>
> If at once you don't........you know the drill, work until 3:00 A.M. and
> get it going.
> Bill Baka
>

Yeah, there's nothing like the satisfaction of
finding a resolution, especially a not so obvious one.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:42:36 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:

> MarkA wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> I suspect that the XP computer in question might be the next one
>> that mysteriously disappears one night, to be replaced by a shiny
>> new box running Ubuntu.
>
> You don't need a new computer. A CDRom or DVD will do nicely.

True, but your average "I only know Windows and don't want to have to
change to a new OS even if it does work way better and nobody but you
likes Linux anyway" co-worker will probably accept a new OS easier if it
is wrapped in some new hardware.

--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar

MarkA wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:42:36 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:
>
>> MarkA wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> I suspect that the XP computer in question might be the next one
>>> that mysteriously disappears one night, to be replaced by a shiny
>>> new box running Ubuntu.
>>
>> You don't need a new computer. A CDRom or DVD will do nicely.
>
> True, but your average "I only know Windows and don't want to have to
> change to a new OS even if it does work way better and nobody but you
> likes Linux anyway" co-worker will probably accept a new OS easier if it
> is wrapped in some new hardware.

Strangely enough, I've found that /not/ to be the case. The "average" user is
usually happier to stay with hardware "they know" at first.

My company does lots of migrations and find that users are usually entirely
happy to accept new operating systems and software /if/ they get "sufficient"
training - the fact that "training" needs only to be details of usernames and
passwords often escapes them!

The increase in productivity due to replacement of proprietary rubbish with
proper software is often spectacular. The fact that the users cannot any
longer install "toolbars" and suffer from malware infections, and that the
general maintenance requirements are very reduced and can largely be
automated, means that costs are significantly reduced and reliability and
security enhanced.

C.

Adam wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Adam wrote:
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>> Found the reason why ...
>>>>
>>>> >> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
>>>>
>>>> thanks to the following excellent thread ...
>>>> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
>>>> by Stormbringer.
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that ZoneAlarm was silently blocking it.
>>>> [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605&page=3]
>>>> I'll have to find out how to unsilence ZoneAlarm once silenced.
>>
>> I have Zonealarm on my XP and I have to kill it completely to change
>> anything on my router. Something about Zonealarm and routers (Linksys
>> WRT54G's at least) won't play nice. No other program kills the interface
>> like this and even with all features turned off, the Zonealarm still
>> blocks any direct router traffic. It sees it, but the screen is so bad
>> the Zonealarm gets terminated, I do my configuration, then start
>> Zonealarm over again, or just reboot back to Ubuntu.
>>
>
> Really? My Linksys router gets along with ZoneAlarm.
> Probably because it is listed in the "Trusted Zone" of
> ZoneAlarm (Firewall->Zones tab).

Same here, but I have 192.168.8.1 as the starting point, unblocked.
I have been using Zonealarm forever and it has had some quirks but does
work well. It won't display the text part of the graphics for the
security settings unless I flat out kill Zonealarm. As for using it on
the net there is no problem unless I want to change the settings.
For instance, Doubleclick can be blocked by clicking when it comes up,
but I got way thorough about 6 months ago and did a smart whois and
blocked the whole range of IP addresses for most of the spam sites.
>
> Luckily, my network has been stable (requiring little change) for
> some years now. So, I haven't had much problems with ZoneAlarm.
> Like the saying goes ... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ;p
>
Life should be so easy!

>
>>
>>>> After going through the old Linux book, which supports Win9x.
>>>> It got me thinking ... now why wouldn't Win9x work if it worked with
>>>> older versions of Linux? At least, most of the older stuff should
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> I find that the problem is usually with the new additions/changes, not
>>>> with what has been working for years. Though little tweaks may be
>>>> necessary for the new stuff. Good Luck!!! ;p
>>>>
>>> WOOHOO!!! And, Network Neighborhood seems to work better now.
>>> It shows my Ubuntu box. Not sure whether it's due entirely to the
>>> ZoneAlarm tweak. Can't remember if I made other Samba changes at the
>>> moment. So glad I didn't give up ...
>>
>> If at once you don't........you know the drill, work until 3:00 A.M. and
>> get it going.
>> Bill Baka
> >
>
> Yeah, there's nothing like the satisfaction of
> finding a resolution, especially a not so obvious one.

I sleep a whole lot better if I have solved a problem rather than worry
about fixing it in the morning.
Cheers,
Bill Baka

"Bill Baka" wrote in message news:gdo2j2$mij$1@aioe.org...
> Adam wrote:
> > Bill Baka wrote:
> >> Adam wrote:
> >>> Adam wrote:
> >>>> Found the reason why ...
> >>>>
> >>>> >> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks to the following excellent thread ...
> >>>> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
> >>>> by Stormbringer.
> >>>>
> >>>> It turns out that ZoneAlarm was silently blocking it.
> >>>> [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605&page=3]
> >>>> I'll have to find out how to unsilence ZoneAlarm once silenced.
> >>
> >> I have Zonealarm on my XP and I have to kill it completely to change
> >> anything on my router. Something about Zonealarm and routers (Linksys
> >> WRT54G's at least) won't play nice. No other program kills the interface
> >> like this and even with all features turned off, the Zonealarm still
> >> blocks any direct router traffic. It sees it, but the screen is so bad
> >> the Zonealarm gets terminated, I do my configuration, then start
> >> Zonealarm over again, or just reboot back to Ubuntu.
> >>
> >
> > Really? My Linksys router gets along with ZoneAlarm.
> > Probably because it is listed in the "Trusted Zone" of
> > ZoneAlarm (Firewall->Zones tab).
>
> Same here, but I have 192.168.8.1 as the starting point, unblocked.
> I have been using Zonealarm forever and it has had some quirks but does
> work well. It won't display the text part of the graphics for the
> security settings unless I flat out kill Zonealarm. As for using it on
> the net there is no problem unless I want to change the settings.
> For instance, Doubleclick can be blocked by clicking when it comes up,
> but I got way thorough about 6 months ago and did a smart whois and
> blocked the whole range of IP addresses for most of the spam sites.
>

I just use a HOSTS file for blocking. ;p

Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File ...
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

But then, on Ubuntu Hardy, something is
modifying and clobbering the /etc/hosts file once in a while.

Adam wrote:
> I just use a HOSTS file for blocking. ;p

I admit, I should do something like that so I don't have to do it over
after a crash.
>
> Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File ...
> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

I went there and have my FF sitting there now, looks interesting, but a
long read for later.
>
> But then, on Ubuntu Hardy, something is
> modifying and clobbering the /etc/hosts file once in a while.
>
>
This computer does have some weirdness with Hardy, as it did with Gutsy,
so I am waiting (still) for the formal release of Ibis to see how it
does. Of course the plan is to do OO3 along with the 8.10 upgrade and
see how many new problems there are to fix.
All 4 now.
Bill Baka

"Bill Baka" wrote in message news:gdo8er$fl6$1@aioe.org...
> Adam wrote:
> > I just use a HOSTS file for blocking. ;p
> >
>
> I admit, I should do something like that so I don't have to do it over
> after a crash.
>

That's probably why I don't encounter much problems with
ZoneAlarm. I don't interface with it much. ;p

> >
> > Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File ...
> > http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>
> I went there and have my FF sitting there now, looks interesting, but a
> long read for later.
>

There's not much to it. Just download the HOSTS file and
put in the right directory for target OS. But, on Ubuntu Hardy,
I append the HOSTS file to the end of the one that's already there.


> >
> > But then, on Ubuntu Hardy, something is
> > modifying and clobbering the /etc/hosts file once in a while.
> >
>
> This computer does have some weirdness with Hardy, as it did with Gutsy,
> so I am waiting (still) for the formal release of Ibis to see how it
> does. Of course the plan is to do OO3 along with the 8.10 upgrade and
> see how many new problems there are to fix.
> All 4 now.
> Bill Baka
>

Adam wrote:
> "Bill Baka" wrote in message news:gdo8er$fl6$1@aioe.org...
>> Adam wrote:
>>> I just use a HOSTS file for blocking. ;p
>>>
>> I admit, I should do something like that so I don't have to do it over
>> after a crash.
>>
>
> That's probably why I don't encounter much problems with
> ZoneAlarm. I don't interface with it much. ;p

Same here since the only time I mess with it is when I find a new PITA
to block. Most of the junk I get now is cookies in IE (7 or 8?) when M$
forces me to use their junk to get updates.
>
>>> Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File ...
>>> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>> I went there and have my FF sitting there now, looks interesting, but a
>> long read for later.
>>
>
> There's not much to it. Just download the HOSTS file and
> put in the right directory for target OS. But, on Ubuntu Hardy,
> I append the HOSTS file to the end of the one that's already there.

One more for tonight, but better than watching pre-election television.
>
>
>>> But then, on Ubuntu Hardy, something is
>>> modifying and clobbering the /etc/hosts file once in a while.
>>>
>> This computer does have some weirdness with Hardy, as it did with Gutsy,
>> so I am waiting (still) for the formal release of Ibis to see how it
>> does. Of course the plan is to do OO3 along with the 8.10 upgrade and
>> see how many new problems there are to fix.
>> All 4 now.
>> Bill Baka
>>
>
>
More mail to go through now, so....
Bye.
Bill Baka

* Adam wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:

> Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File ...
> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Let someone else maintain it for you:

Mike's ad blocking hosts file:

http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html

--
David

"Adam" wrote in message news:gdo74r$ji0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Bill Baka" wrote in message news:gdo2j2$mij$1@aioe.org...
> > Adam wrote:
> > > Bill Baka wrote:
> > >> Adam wrote:
> > >>> Adam wrote:
> > >>>> Found the reason why ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> >> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
> > >>>>
> > >>>> thanks to the following excellent thread ...
> > >>>> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
> > >>>> by Stormbringer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It turns out that ZoneAlarm was silently blocking it.
> > >>>> [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605&page=3]
> > >>>> I'll have to find out how to unsilence ZoneAlarm once silenced.
> > >>
> > >> I have Zonealarm on my XP and I have to kill it completely to change
> > >> anything on my router. Something about Zonealarm and routers (Linksys
> > >> WRT54G's at least) won't play nice. No other program kills the interface
> > >> like this and even with all features turned off, the Zonealarm still
> > >> blocks any direct router traffic. It sees it, but the screen is so bad
> > >> the Zonealarm gets terminated, I do my configuration, then start
> > >> Zonealarm over again, or just reboot back to Ubuntu.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Really? My Linksys router gets along with ZoneAlarm.
> > > Probably because it is listed in the "Trusted Zone" of
> > > ZoneAlarm (Firewall->Zones tab).
> >
> > Same here, but I have 192.168.8.1 as the starting point, unblocked.
> > I have been using Zonealarm forever and it has had some quirks but does
> > work well. It won't display the text part of the graphics for the
> > security settings unless I flat out kill Zonealarm. As for using it on
> > the net there is no problem unless I want to change the settings.
> > For instance, Doubleclick can be blocked by clicking when it comes up,
> > but I got way thorough about 6 months ago and did a smart whois and
> > blocked the whole range of IP addresses for most of the spam sites.
> >
>
> I just use a HOSTS file for blocking. ;p
>
> Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File ...
> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>
> But then, on Ubuntu Hardy, something is
> modifying and clobbering the /etc/hosts file once in a while.
>
>

"Adam" wrote in message news:gdo74r$ji0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Bill Baka" wrote in message news:gdo2j2$mij$1@aioe.org...
> > Adam wrote:
> > > Bill Baka wrote:
> > >> Adam wrote:
> > >>> Adam wrote:
> > >>>> Found the reason why ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> >> 4) Ubuntu box can't ping Win98SE box
> > >>>>
> > >>>> thanks to the following excellent thread ...
> > >>>> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605
> > >>>> by Stormbringer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It turns out that ZoneAlarm was silently blocking it.
> > >>>> [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605&page=3]
> > >>>> I'll have to find out how to unsilence ZoneAlarm once silenced.
> > >>
> > >> I have Zonealarm on my XP and I have to kill it completely to change
> > >> anything on my router. Something about Zonealarm and routers (Linksys
> > >> WRT54G's at least) won't play nice. No other program kills the interface
> > >> like this and even with all features turned off, the Zonealarm still
> > >> blocks any direct router traffic. It sees it, but the screen is so bad
> > >> the Zonealarm gets terminated, I do my configuration, then start
> > >> Zonealarm over again, or just reboot back to Ubuntu.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Really? My Linksys router gets along with ZoneAlarm.
> > > Probably because it is listed in the "Trusted Zone" of
> > > ZoneAlarm (Firewall->Zones tab).
> >
> > Same here, but I have 192.168.8.1 as the starting point, unblocked.
> > I have been using Zonealarm forever and it has had some quirks but does
> > work well. It won't display the text part of the graphics for the
> > security settings unless I flat out kill Zonealarm. As for using it on
> > the net there is no problem unless I want to change the settings.
> > For instance, Doubleclick can be blocked by clicking when it comes up,
> > but I got way thorough about 6 months ago and did a smart whois and
> > blocked the whole range of IP addresses for most of the spam sites.
> >
>
> I just use a HOSTS file for blocking. ;p
>
> Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File ...
> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>
> But then, on Ubuntu Hardy, something is
> modifying and clobbering the /etc/hosts file once in a while.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file

Be sure to use a reputable HOSTS file.
You've been warned ...