LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 11-09-2009, 01:08 AM   #1
dvdljns
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 210

Rep: Reputation: 30
connection sharing through windows


Not sure if I am in the right place but since I know almost nothing about linux and this question is meant to be a general question to find out my options, I thought I would start here and then move to another section when the questions get more specific. Heres the thing. my nt4 backoffice server needed replaceing. For a lot of reasons I decided it had outlived itself. After doing some research I decided that linux could could replace nt4 and give me a chance to use newer apps and develepments that I have to find workarounds for nt4. The problem came in when I tried connecting to the internet. I have to have a reliable connection through a wireless adaptor which I am not getting through linux. After fighting linux all day and only getting a 1 mb conection I thought that since all my windows machine connect at a fast rate to bad I can't just pipe all my connections through one of them. looking on the web the only thing I found on the subject is colinux and cygwin. But reading the info niether cygwin or colinux actaully says you can use a wireless connection. I know windows will right me a connection script seems to me the windows script could changed into a pearl script to run on linux. Has anyone tried this before. "connecting linux through a windows box"
 
Old 11-09-2009, 05:55 PM   #2
kbp
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,790

Rep: Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650
I'd probably try to resolve the issues with the wireless on linux rather than use ICS or equivalent. What distro are you running and is it current ?
 
Old 11-15-2009, 01:06 PM   #3
dvdljns
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 210

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbp View Post
I'd probably try to resolve the issues with the wireless on linux rather than use ICS or equivalent. What distro are you running and is it current ?
I tried for two months to resolve my linux wireless problems,but the real solution turns out to be a windows box running ccproxy,opendhcp and now I have to work out the bind9.conf. The best solution is the most easy and fast one that solves the problem.K.I.S.S someday linux will find itself in the situation of being forced to work out its wireless problems. Right now it is stuck in a rut of putting out upgrades for the sole purpose of drawing attention to itself. I now have had the pleasure of installing from ubuntu 5.10 to 8.04 and found little usefull diferances in any of the uprades. each version has more bloat a eats up more resources but 8.04 really is not any better nor does it add anything to productivity. Thanks for your help on this matter.

Last edited by dvdljns; 11-15-2009 at 01:08 PM.
 
Old 11-15-2009, 01:23 PM   #4
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 12,644
Blog Entries: 27

Rep: Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012Reputation: 2012
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdljns View Post
I tried for two months to resolve my linux wireless problems,but the real solution turns out to be a windows box running ccproxy,opendhcp and now I have to work out the bind9.conf. The best solution is the most easy and fast one that solves the problem.K.I.S.S someday linux will find itself in the situation of being forced to work out its wireless problems. Right now it is stuck in a rut of putting out upgrades for the sole purpose of drawing attention to itself. I now have had the pleasure of installing from ubuntu 5.10 to 8.04 and found little usefull diferances in any of the uprades. each version has more bloat a eats up more resources but 8.04 really is not any better nor does it add anything to productivity. Thanks for your help on this matter.

It seems that you may not being able to connect via wireless has prejudiced your viewpoint. GNU/Linux is always evolving therefore the wireless will be in flux. Partly due to the manufactures not supporting nor releasing information for their devices. This can be partly due to the M$ relationship with the manufacture. You do have the ability to use the M$ drivers via 'ndiswrapper' for unsupported hardware on your GNU/Linux install.

Too lump GNU/Linux generally with upgrades from the '*buntus' is not a fair nor proper reflection. Have you thought that maybe some of the fault is on you? Not understanding nor investigating your issues properly. I don't use any of the '*buntus' and probably won't but they do meet the needs of a lot of people who don't seem to have the issues that you present. Look in the mirror as it seems to me the problem exists in that reflection.

 
Old 11-15-2009, 02:48 PM   #5
Erik_FL
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 816

Rep: Reputation: 254Reputation: 254Reputation: 254
What wireless card or chip are you trying to use with Linux? I've never had any problems getting wireless to work on Linux. I've used either "ndiswrapper" or "madwifi" drivers. I use "wpa-supplicant" to handle the encryption and pass phrase authentication.

If you already have a broadband router, then you normally do not want to use Internet Connection Sharing (ICS). Just use simple network bridging on the Windows system to bridge the wired and wireless networks.

This is a good article on the subject of setting up wired to wireless bridges.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...02april22.mspx

Linux emulation libraries such as CYGWIN don't see wireless network adapters any differently than wired network adapters. They communicate at the sockets level, not the Ethernet or wireless link level. It's up to the host OS (Windows) to handle the pass phrase authentication and encryption setup.

With a virtual machine program like VirtualBox you can run Linux inside a virtual machine on Windows. In that case the host OS (Windows) still handles the pass phrase authentication and encryption setup. The Virtual network adapter is bridged (in essence) to the wireless adapter.

VirtualBox also provides for USB pass through so you can use a USB wireless adapter directly from Linux inside a virtual machine. Then Linux will do the pass phrase authentication and encryption setup. The wireless driver in Linux will be used, as well as any supplicant software such as "wpa-supplicant". The main reason to do that directly to USB is for network hacking. It isn't any real benefit for normal Internet communication.

One's first impression of Linux is often affected by the hardware configuration. Linux supports some hardware very well, and has limited or no support for other hardware. Wireless adapters, sound cards/chips, software modems and web cameras are examples of hardware that may have limited Linux support. Support for Wireless adapters continues to improve for Linux.

Windows tends to support more hardware than Linux, but that Windows support is getting slowly worse as new hardware departs from long established standards. I've recently had problems trying to use Windows XP on newer hardware, or Windows Vista on older hardware.

Sometimes it makes sense to purchase hardware that is compatible with the operating system you plan to use rather than spending time trying to make existing hardware work. For example, I found that spending $50 on a hardware modem was a better investment than trying to make software modems work on Linux. The same thing may be true with some wireless adapters.

Laptops are more of a challenge but it often still pays to buy an external USB adapter for Linux than to try and make the cost-engineered hardware inside a laptop work. In addition to less hassle, the performance may be better.

If you don't want to spend time learning about Linux then selecting compatible hardware is much more important. Although some Linux distros can install and run without much configuration they don't do that on all hardware. If you're willing to learn more about Linux you will be able to support some additional hardware that requires extra work to configure with Linux.

I'm carefully avoiding the question of which is better for a server, Windows or Linux. There are advantages and disadvantages with both. The major disadvantage of Windows Server is the cost of licensing. The number of clients and the software on a Windows server have a direct effect on the cost. The disadvantage of a Linux server is the extra time and knowledge required to set it up and maintain it. Hardware support might be an issue depending on the requirements for the server. In some cases Linux supports hardware that is unsupported by current Windows versions.

With Linux there are a lot more choices, so be careful that you don't form your impression of ALL Linux distros based on trying a few of them on only one or two hardware configurations.

Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 are the closest versions in terms of the performance and resource requirements for a Linux server. Newer Linux desktops may require something closer to a machine that would run Windows XP. Be careful comparing older versions of Windows to Linux because newer versions of Windows will not compare as favorably. If you upgrade a server from Windows NT 4.0 to a newer version of Windows you may have some of the same issues that you would with Linux.

Newer versions of both Windows and Linux eventually have problems with older hardware. That happens as new features prevent older hardware features from working, or the drivers and software for the older hardware become less common. Older hardware is often tested less in new releases and inevitably some bugs appear. Whenever the operating system and hardware are not from the same era, one should be prepared for problems. The life span of hardware and software is getting shorter and compatibility problems are getting much more likely when the hardware is not upgraded with the operating system.
 
Old 11-16-2009, 12:43 AM   #6
dvdljns
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 210

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Thumbs up

Quote:
What wireless card or chip are you trying to use with Linux? I've never had any problems getting wireless to work on Linux. I've used either "ndiswrapper" or "madwifi" drivers. I use "wpa-supplicant" to handle the encryption and pass phrase authentication.
I started out with netgear 311v3 then but a usb card that uses a rtl8187L I think it is. linux 2.6 kernel has built in support for it.
Quote:
If you already have a broadband router, then you normally do not want to use Internet Connection Sharing (ICS). Just use simple network bridging on the Windows system to bridge the wired and wireless networks.This is a good article on the subject of setting up wired to wireless bridges.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...02april22.mspx
I need to check up on that,but after trying out proxy I am convinced thats the way to go. regardless of the os.
Quote:
Linux emulation libraries such as CYGWIN don't see wireless network adapters any differently than wired network adapters. They communicate at the sockets level, not the Ethernet or wireless link level. It's up to the host OS (Windows) to handle the pass phrase authentication and encryption setup.

With a virtual machine program like VirtualBox you can run Linux inside a virtual machine on Windows. In that case the host OS (Windows) still handles the pass phrase authentication and encryption setup. The Virtual network adapter is bridged (in essence) to the wireless adapter.

VirtualBox also provides for USB pass through so you can use a USB wireless adapter directly from Linux inside a virtual machine. Then Linux will do the pass phrase authentication and encryption setup. The wireless driver in Linux will be used, as well as any supplicant software such as "wpa-supplicant". The main reason to do that directly to USB is for network hacking. It isn't any real benefit for normal Internet communication.
Ok let me paraphrase this and you tell me if I understand you right? I can setup a linux machine inside windows and use my windows connection to get online?

Quote:
One's first impression of Linux is often affected by the hardware configuration. Linux supports some hardware very well, and has limited or no support for other hardware. Wireless adapters, sound cards/chips, software modems and web cameras are examples of hardware that may have limited Linux support. Support for Wireless adapters continues to improve for Linux.
The first time I ran across linux was a post of tarvolds os that only had the drivers he used. I have been watching it ever since. every so often I download all the versions I can find and try them out. linux has went downhill since redhat 5.1. The most promising thing about linux was the claim that it would get you away from the windows bloat problem. now your basic install is so much larger then windows ever thought being.
Quote:
Windows tends to support more hardware than Linux, but that Windows support is getting slowly worse as new hardware departs from long established standards. I've recently had problems trying to use Windows XP on newer hardware, or Windows Vista on older hardware.
I have not had any problems since win98. none of my win95 drivers worked and they had not made 98 drivers for the stuff. complete hardware upgrade.

Quote:
Sometimes it makes sense to purchase hardware that is compatible with the operating system you plan to use rather than spending time trying to make existing hardware work. For example, I found that spending $50 on a hardware modem was a better investment than trying to make software modems work on Linux. The same thing may be true with some wireless adapters.
do people use modems anymore? I do not even bother to load drivers for onboard modems and if I can I take the boards out. If you are interested I have box of about 50 I will ship you.

Quote:
Laptops are more of a challenge but it often still pays to buy an external USB adapter for Linux than to try and make the cost-engineered hardware inside a laptop work. In addition to less hassle, the performance may be better.
no comment. I do not think a laptop is worth the price.


Quote:
If you don't want to spend time learning about Linux then selecting compatible hardware is much more important. Although some Linux distros can install and run without much configuration they don't do that on all hardware. If you're willing to learn more about Linux you will be able to support some additional hardware that requires extra work to configure with Linux.
I do want to learn about linux but do not feel I should have to become a programer to install it. I learned to program basic to run dos. windows came out with version .97 that came with a book that explained how to set it up. A basic programing manual. 1.01 ditto there. I moved up 311 and got some releif but when I changed to win95 I had to hack my 311 drivers to work. win98 same modem same problem. I am up in age now I feel I paid my dues.

Quote:
I'm carefully avoiding the question of which is better for a server, Windows or Linux. There are advantages and disadvantages with both. The major disadvantage of Windows Server is the cost of licensing. The number of clients and the software on a Windows server have a direct effect on the cost. The disadvantage of a Linux server is the extra time and knowledge required to set it up and maintain it. Hardware support might be an issue depending on the requirements for the server. In some cases Linux supports hardware that is unsupported by current Windows versions.
maybe, do not have vista and I have not run across any hardware that xp does not support. But it is coming I know. The thing about this server is once I set it up. As long as it works I should not have to do anything to it. What I do on it has not changed in 25 years and won't change in the next 25 years. The machine I am trying to build will just set there. Unless there is hardware malfunction the only thing I will have to do is maybe add permission for another machine.

Quote:
With Linux there are a lot more choices, so be careful that you don't form your impression of ALL Linux distros based on trying a few of them on only one or two hardware configurations.
I only need one good choice.

[quote]
Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 are the closest versions in terms of the performance and resource requirements for a Linux server. Newer Linux desktops may require something closer to a machine that would run Windows XP. Be careful comparing older versions of Windows to Linux because newer versions of Windows will not compare as favorably. If you upgrade a server from Windows NT 4.0 to a newer version of Windows you may have some of the same issues that you would with Linux.
[/qoute]

I have windows 2000 server here,2003 server and xppro. They are setting in a box. The price of running them was not worth it.
It takes me more memory to run ubuntu 7.04 desktop then it does xphome.
I ran a full install of xphome edition on a 500 mhz comp with 97mb of memory as a test and it ran fine.

Quote:
Newer versions of both Windows and Linux eventually have problems with older hardware. That happens as new features prevent older hardware features from working, or the drivers and software for the older hardware become less common. Older hardware is often tested less in new releases and inevitably some bugs appear. Whenever the operating system and hardware are not from the same era, one should be prepared for problems. The life span of hardware and software is getting shorter and compatibility problems are getting much more likely when the hardware is not upgraded with the operating system.
again I do not know about vista but my xp machine are able to run my old hardware just fine. now I do have some newer stuff I can not find win2k drivers for.
I have not gave up on linux but I ran across the same problems with ubuntu 8.04 that I did with 5.10 and had to deal with a bigger os that took more mem and and a lot more programs that I had no use for. Oh well I need sleep bad. so I will finish this post tomorrow. I ejoyed this chat and hope we can continue. maybe Linux emulation libraries is the answer I have been looking for.
 
Old 11-16-2009, 11:05 AM   #7
Erik_FL
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 816

Rep: Reputation: 254Reputation: 254Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdljns View Post
I started out with netgear 311v3 then but a usb card that uses a rtl8187L I think it is. linux 2.6 kernel has built in support for it.


I need to check up on that,but after trying out proxy I am convinced thats the way to go. regardless of the os.


Ok let me paraphrase this and you tell me if I understand you right? I can setup a linux machine inside windows and use my windows connection to get online?
That's correct. Linux can use a virtual Ethernet adapter provided by the virtual machine software to access the Internet through a Windows wireless connection. Windows provides the driver for the wireless adapter and establishes the connection in the normal way.

The Linux run-time environments like CYGWIN don't directly access the hardware and they provide the Linux sockets interface to each individual program just like Linux. On a machine with lmited RAM and a slower CPU the CYGWIN software is a better choice than virtual machine software. VirtualBox takes quite a bit of memory and CPU resources to work. I use CYGWIN to run some compilers on Windows XP. The drawback to CYGWIN is that it does not provide the X-Windows interface, only the Linux shell and kernel interface.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdljns View Post
The first time I ran across linux was a post of tarvolds os that only had the drivers he used. I have been watching it ever since. every so often I download all the versions I can find and try them out. linux has went downhill since redhat 5.1. The most promising thing about linux was the claim that it would get you away from the windows bloat problem. now your basic install is so much larger then windows ever thought being.


I have not had any problems since win98. none of my win95 drivers worked and they had not made 98 drivers for the stuff. complete hardware upgrade.
Like just about everything else with Linux, the size of the installation is completely up to you. Even with all the sources installed the Slackware Linux distro I use is about 5GB of hard disk space and uses 300 to 400MB of RAM.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 use a few gigabytes to install the OS (without the source code) and 600MB to 1GB of RAM.

At the moment I consider Linux and Windows about equal in terms of resource requirements, although Windows is increasing a bit faster than Linux.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdljns View Post
do people use modems anymore? I do not even bother to load drivers for onboard modems and if I can I take the boards out. If you are interested I have box of about 50 I will ship you.
I'm using mine more now that my Internet provider prevents me from using their mail server through any other broadband connection. I use it when I travel a couple times a year. Sometimes it's convenient for sending faxes although OneSuite.com will probably work just as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdljns View Post
no comment. I do not think a laptop is worth the price.
I agree with you but I'm starting to appreciate some of the benefits besides having a computer to use when I travel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdljns View Post
I do want to learn about linux but do not feel I should have to become a programer to install it. I learned to program basic to run dos. windows came out with version .97 that came with a book that explained how to set it up. A basic programing manual. 1.01 ditto there. I moved up 311 and got some releif but when I changed to win95 I had to hack my 311 drivers to work. win98 same modem same problem. I am up in age now I feel I paid my dues.
Unfortunately, Microsoft thinks that everyone should pay more dues. Vista and Windows 7 have changed a lot of the user interface from Windows XP and obsoleted much of the previous programming environment. You will have to relearn some of Windows if you want to use newer versions.

I can't really be objective about how much one has to be a programmer to use Linux because I am a programmer and probably assume many things that are not obvious to non-programmers. On the other hand, I did suffer from much of the initial frustration that you describe because Linux does things according to some traditional Unix rules that I don't know. I found the www.slackbook.org site very helpful and it was one of the reasons I ended up using the Slackware Linux distro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdljns View Post
maybe, do not have vista and I have not run across any hardware that xp does not support. But it is coming I know. The thing about this server is once I set it up. As long as it works I should not have to do anything to it. What I do on it has not changed in 25 years and won't change in the next 25 years. The machine I am trying to build will just set there. Unless there is hardware malfunction the only thing I will have to do is maybe add permission for another machine.

I only need one good choice.
I'm not trying to sell you Linux. I would still be using Windows NT 4.0 if it supported the hardware and software I need. Computers don't last forever though. Use Windows XP as long as you can. I think it's the best version of Windows so far. Windows Vista is a step backwards, and Windows 7 is only a little bit of an improvement over Vista.

Ubuntu and most of the Linux distros are based on the GNOME desktop. Slackware uses KDE. GNOME has gotten bloated with eye candy and now it seems that KDE is going down that road. KDE is a mess at the moment because it keeps changing features and design without ever fixing the bugs introduced from each change.

The Slackware 12.2 distro is a good comparison to Windows XP but you do have to read some of the manual on www.slackbook.org to install Slackware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdljns View Post
I have windows 2000 server here,2003 server and xppro. They are setting in a box. The price of running them was not worth it.
It takes me more memory to run ubuntu 7.04 desktop then it does xphome.
I ran a full install of xphome edition on a 500 mhz comp with 97mb of memory as a test and it ran fine.

again I do not know about vista but my xp machine are able to run my old hardware just fine. now I do have some newer stuff I can not find win2k drivers for.
I have not gave up on linux but I ran across the same problems with ubuntu 8.04 that I did with 5.10 and had to deal with a bigger os that took more mem and and a lot more programs that I had no use for. Oh well I need sleep bad. so I will finish this post tomorrow. I ejoyed this chat and hope we can continue. maybe Linux emulation libraries is the answer I have been looking for.
I'm surprised that you could use Internet Explorer and Windows with 97MB of RAM. Most of the Windows XP installations that I've used took at least 128MB to 256MB and quickly consumed 300MB to 400MB after installing antivirus software and a few other programs that run at startup.

I don't even try to run any OS on a computer with less than 512MB now. Ubuntu does require around 300MB.

After using Windows NT Server 4.0, Windows Server 2003 has been much more complicated and difficult. I haven't used Windows Server 2007 yet (hopefully never). Windows XP Pro is very close to Windows XP Home, so it shouldn't be any problem for you to use if you want. It provides a little bit better control over the permissions and policy settings and a few more features that you can ignore if you don't need them.

I encourage you to learn more about Linux. It's another choice that you may find useful. It's better if you learn about Linux gradually than try to dive in and understand it.
 
Old 11-16-2009, 01:35 PM   #8
texan
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
Talking

First off I want apolgize for Id change here. I need to go over to see if I can talk to admin I think they took away my login. But I do want to continue this. This is one of the few times I have been able just to talk to someone about linux. Linux users are real touchy about whats said about the os. But if you stick your head in the sand the problems do not just go away. What they do not take into account is that I do not give up. I agree linux has a lot of good points but untill I get it loaded and learn about it all I have is the problems.
Quote:
That's correct. Linux can use a virtual Ethernet adapter provided by the virtual machine software to access the Internet through a Windows wireless connection. Windows provides the driver for the wireless adapter and establishes the connection in the normal way.
I done some reading there I do not think will be the quick fix I was hoping for,but it is a future option.


Quote:
The Linux run-time environments like CYGWIN don't directly access the hardware and they provide the Linux sockets interface to each individual program just like Linux. On a machine with lmited RAM and a slower CPU the CYGWIN software is a better choice than virtual machine software. VirtualBox takes quite a bit of memory and CPU resources to work. I use CYGWIN to run some compilers on Windows XP. The drawback to CYGWIN is that it does not provide the X-Windows interface, only the Linux shell and kernel interface.
Yes I read something about you need to compile the programs you run on it. One of my problems right now is I need to install it on win2k and Win2k is missing some files. The cygwin page told me that but I could not find out wich files so I need to look around to find that info. virtualbox needs to much memory for me to install right now. I need to order that. Really though as long as I can make linux connect through a windows proxy box I see nothing wrong with that. I need a working linux system to learn on and it gives me that.


Quote:
Like just about everything else with Linux, the size of the installation is completely up to you. Even with all the sources installed the Slackware Linux distro I use is about 5GB of hard disk space and uses 300 to 400MB of RAM.
I had 8.04 on 384 mb and I would not call it running. I would click on a program and walk away from the comp. it was so slow.

Quote:
I can't really be objective about how much one has to be a programmer to use Linux because I am a programmer and probably assume many things that are not obvious to non-programmers.
Thats true of the whole linux comunity. You can pick any distro you want and it has more pages of instructions written on it then all the os's put together and is still the poorest documented os out there.

Quote:
I'm not trying to sell you Linux. I would still be using Windows NT 4.0 if it supported the hardware and software I need. Computers don't last forever though. Use Windows XP as long as you can. I think it's the best version of Windows so far.
At least you understand why I am trying to get rid of a os that is technically still working for me. Oh and win98 was the best.

Quote:
I'm surprised that you could use Internet Explorer and Windows with 97MB of RAM. Most of the Windows XP installations that I've used took at least 128MB to 256MB and quickly consumed 300MB to 400MB after installing antivirus software and a few other programs that run at startup.
Use may be to strong a word. I did a little surfing with it and some simple editing. But it was as fast as 5.10 on 256 megs. I understand though I had the same reaction about the first time I was told win95 would run on 2mb of mem. It will but I don't recommend it.

Quote:
I encourage you to learn more about Linux. It's another choice that you may find useful. It's better if you learn about Linux gradually than try to dive in and understand it.
Oh I agree but unless I can get it installed and online I will not learn.
Thats the way I learned everything I know is by doing. I do not know whether I will be able to get back on again. But if not I am on msn messenger under dvdljns at yahoo.com.
 
Old 11-16-2009, 03:37 PM   #9
kbp
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,790

Rep: Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650
Hi,

Just a suggestion, maybe you could run linux in a vm while learning, the host OS will provide your internet/network connection and you won't hit any hardware obstacles. I run the opposite (XP guest on Fedora host) on my old T42 without problems

cheers
 
Old 11-16-2009, 04:28 PM   #10
dvdljns
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 210

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbp View Post
Hi,

Just a suggestion, maybe you could run linux in a vm while learning, the host OS will provide your internet/network connection and you won't hit any hardware obstacles. I run the opposite (XP guest on Fedora host) on my old T42 without problems

cheers
Yep just what we were talking about. but I need mem for host + mem for linux os. the page for virtual box said 1gig at min but I think if I load ubuntu 7.04 or fc3 I could get by on 512. Still it means I need to buy bigger mem chips. The only chips I have here is 128 mb and all my comps hold two chips,so you get the picture. Wonder if I could do that with dsl. or something like that.
 
Old 11-16-2009, 04:49 PM   #11
kbp
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,790

Rep: Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650Reputation: 650
If you run with low memory the paging will kill you - ram is pretty cheap these days, worth the spend
 
Old 11-16-2009, 06:23 PM   #12
dvdljns
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 210

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbp View Post
If you run with low memory the paging will kill you - ram is pretty cheap these days, worth the spend
Yep but I been running windows so have not needed a lot mem untill now.
When I run xp 512 gives me a surplus of memory. 256 is plenty for win2k.
Linux takes more. If I do a webserver and download server mailserver stuff like that I put in more but a desktop with office and a few simple things like that don't take much. This ones a machine I built for my daughter dual pentiam with 2 gigs in it. Sometimes it looks like she has half the inernet opened at one time. But when I had dsl loaded with 128 mb if I worked it real hard it used 17% of my memory. To catch you up on the conversation I am trying to put Together a proxy server so I can get online more then one computor. It has to have a dhcp server so I can hook a router to it. Then I will hook a mixture of windows and linux comps to that. One of them will be the linux desktop I will learn more about linux on.
 
Old 11-16-2009, 07:37 PM   #13
Erik_FL
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 816

Rep: Reputation: 254Reputation: 254Reputation: 254
Realistically to use VirtualBox you need about 1GB of RAM and a 2GHz. CPU. My Acer laptop has those specifications and runs VirtualBox on Windows XP. I allocate 256MB to Linux in the Virtual Machine. It isn't fast starting up but it's fine once Linux has booted in the virtual machine.

My Pentium 3.2GHz. with 2GB of RAM runs VirtualBox very well and I typically give the virtual machines 768MB of RAM.

VirtualBox is great for running any NT operating system but not good for Windows 95/98/ME. It doesn't have drivers and support software for those operating systems. Microsoft Virtual PC doesn't officially support 95 any more but the old drivers from previous versions of Microsoft Virtual PC will still work. I use Microsoft Virtual PC for playing my Windows 95 games like Sierra 3D Ultra Minigolf.
 
Old 11-16-2009, 07:47 PM   #14
halborr
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Posts: 112

Rep: Reputation: 18
Quote:
When I run xp 512 gives me a surplus of memory. 256 is plenty for win2k.
Linux takes more.
That isn't always true. Up until my uncle sent me this laptop I'm typing this on right now (he dropped it and it needs a HD. Technophobes rule <grin>. 2 gigs of memory and 1.72 ghz dual core processor FTW!) I was running an old box from '98 with 192 meg of ram (showed up as 187 for whatever reason) and as long as you use a lightweight window manager (fluxbox and the like. XFCE would run but it wasn't a real fun experience. No way was I ever getting KDE running on that thing.) and hand-pick your applications, it ran just fine. Heck, I had just gotten it to play videos (with a video card update. Used nvidia off ebay.). Of course, videos only work in a very controlled environment, but point is linux is so customizable you can make just about anything work (within reason).
 
Old 11-17-2009, 01:45 PM   #15
dvdljns
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 210

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by halborr View Post
That isn't always true. Up until my uncle sent me this laptop I'm typing this on right now (he dropped it and it needs a HD. Technophobes rule <grin>. 2 gigs of memory and 1.72 ghz dual core processor FTW!) I was running an old box from '98 with 192 meg of ram (showed up as 187 for whatever reason) and as long as you use a lightweight window manager (fluxbox and the like. XFCE would run but it wasn't a real fun experience. No way was I ever getting KDE running on that thing.) and hand-pick your applications, it ran just fine. Heck, I had just gotten it to play videos (with a video card update. Used nvidia off ebay.). Of course, videos only work in a very controlled environment, but point is linux is so customizable you can make just about anything work (within reason).
Ok lets work on this. I can not do anything abot mem or cpu speed right now. Here is what I need it to do. Dhcp because my routers will not work without that. proxy because thats the reason for doing this. dns maybe because my routers seem to be iffy whithout reaching a dns service. I just need it to send requests out to external dns servers. The first thing to decide is what to use colinux or vbox. then What liux flavor for a min install of this. Also since linux howtos Allways seem to use command line maybe we can drop the desktop to save resources. What do you advise.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
connection sharing with windows akashj87 Slackware 2 05-11-2009 02:30 PM
Internet connection sharing with windows.. astriskmanish Linux - Networking 4 04-22-2007 07:57 PM
sharing internet connection with windows xp melinda_sayang General 11 12-10-2004 09:51 PM
Mandrake 9.0 connection sharing with windows ME spidey_kid2002 Linux - Networking 1 09-30-2003 04:36 AM
Linux sharing connection with windows matt3333 Linux - Networking 10 04-28-2003 01:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration