Text 6209, 153 rader
Skriven 2005-03-27 10:06:34 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
   Kommentar till text 6164 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
Ärende: lan
===========
CA>>> I know, sounds like too much trouble but they can be low
CA>>> quality JPGs and "a picture is worth a thousand words" ya'
CA>>> know?

ML>> yeah... but i can't even begin to count the times that my
ML>> screen looked nothing like the one in the tutorial or even
ML>> in some of the books ;)

 CA> You think there are different menus when everyone is using XP
 CA> or W2K or W9x?

yeah, i know so across those three... their layout and/or wording is slightly
different with each... i won't even mention the fancy crap that XP has turned
on by default... one of the first things i do on XP boxes that folk really love
(no sarcasm) is reducing all the video stuffs and dropping the theme settings
back so that it looks and acts like win98... for most of them, the speed and
snappiness returns and they are very happy... however, that doesn't help with
the stuff that they've moved around, wizardized, or otherwise visually
altered...

ML>> [trim]

ML>>>> yeah, that can be a problem... on the netmask stuff,
ML>>>> that's TCP/IP related and would be located in areas that
ML>>>> specialize in teaching about TCP/IP basics...

CA>>> Maybe so but do people really want to _study_ TCP/IP or do
CA>>> they just want a direct/simple answer?

ML>> i dunno that there is a simple answer...

ML>> a netmask is, as it says, a mask... actually, you and i can
ML>> consider it an AND mask... ya gotta go to the BIT level,
ML>> too... the easy thing to remember is that 255.255.255.0
ML>> lets everything in where the first three octets are the
ML>> same...

 CA> --8<--cut

 CA> Saved to a text file. :-)

yeah, i think i'm going to have to go and grab some of my postings and start
putting them on content pages on my website... that one took a little while to
do (maybe 15 to 20 minutes) and i also had the assistance of a "subnet
calculator" ;)

 CA> I guessed that the "mask" of "netmask" referred to
 CA> masking bits but so many standard terms have been
 CA> co-opted to other purposes I wasn't sure. Now I
 CA> know, thanks. :-)

i know what you mean about the co-opted words and phrases... i detest it with a
high passion...

ML>> this is all the "easy" stuff... "easy" because its only
ML>> working with the last octect... but it is basically the
ML>> same thing up thru the other octects... from what i've
ML>> seen, if one wants to really learn all about netmasks and
ML>> subnets and such, one is better off to take a networking
ML>> class like a cisco certification class or similar... its
ML>> either that or, like me, you keep plugging away at it until
ML>> it really starts to fit and make sense

ML>> ;)

 CA> I think you're probably right.

it can be done on one's own... it just takes a bit longer... i think that a
lost also depends on one's background... it may be harder or easier for you and
me because of our programming and bit-twiddling backgrounds...

i don't yet know how it is done, but they also have networks and subnets that
cross the octet boundaries... i don't think i wanna know but i suspect that it
is something like using less than 255 in one or more octets...  ie:
255.255.248.240 or some such... i really don't know... heck, that example looks
like it would be perfectly fine to me...

ML>>>> netbeui is used because that's what m$ designed their
ML>>>> networking (network neighborhood) stuffs around... the
ML>>>> big question is whether or not to use netbeui wrapped
ML>>>> within tcp/ip packets... netbeui is not routable and thus
ML>>>> cannot travel between different wiring networks... it
ML>>>> needs a routable protocol like tcp/ip to carry it into
ML>>>> different wiring networks...

CA>>> Define "wiring networks" please.

ML>> my phrasing... used to signify a network of machines
ML>> physically connected by wires to one hub or stack of

[trim]

ML>>>> i know that last part sounds confusing and that's where
ML>>>> the use of a hub or switch comes in to play verses using
ML>>>> a router... in most cases...

 CA> I understand somewhat - well enough for a guy who won't use
 CA> the information any time soon. :-)

i hear ya! i've actually so far as to create different networks here so as to
be able to actually work with them and learn some of their nuances... i've got
an OS/2 box in one class c network, a linux box with two NICs, one in each of
two networks that acts as a router or a NAT box depending on where the traffic
is headed, several machines in the second network which is also subnetted as i
showed in my netmask example with one of the subnets using another linux box as
their router ;)

basically three networks all interconnected and carrying tcp/ip as well as
netbios/netbeui traffic... the netbios/netbeui stuff was about the worst,
though... i had to employ the LMHOSTS files and stuff to get everything to be
seen across the network boundaries...

oh yeah, that linux box with the two NICs? it is set up in such a way that it
always wins the browse master elections that make windows netbios/netbeui so
chatty... it is the one that gives all the others the info about what machines
are where for display in network neighborhood... if that linux box doesn't see
it, it won't show up in network neighborhood... if the LMHOSTS file on the
local machine isn't correct, you may see a machine in another network and not
be able to get to it...

[trim]

ML>> i can agree to a point... i can't say that they are
ML>> "hiding" netbeui but i think they see the greater benefits
ML>> of using tcp/ip since it is routable... i think part of the
ML>> problem is that they still need some way to keep their
ML>> stuff encapsulated to make it somewhat harder to snoop
ML>> on... then again, it may be as simple as not wanting to
ML>> rewrite all the guts of the networking stuff that's built
ML>> around netbios when they only need to remove one network
ML>> layer and fake that layer in one driver...

ML>> it may also be part of their propietary stuffness trying to
ML>> keep things not working with other OS' so that folk will
ML>> stay in the m$ henhouse...

 CA> I think it is both the need to avoid rewrites _and_ a shot at
 CA> being proprietary.

yup... kinda where i'm at, too...

ML>> i wonder what'll happen to m$ when billyboy passes on...

 CA> Being somewhat autonomous he has a focus no normal person
 CA> could match. I guess it would depend on whether his
 CA> replacement(s) were autonomous as well. :-)

<<shudder>> i don't thing i want to even comtemplate it... things could get a
whole lot worse if certain paths thru time are followed :(

)\/(ark

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)