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"
|
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 ?
|
Quote:
|
Hi,
Quote:
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. :) :hattip: |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[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:
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. |
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. Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. 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:
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:
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. |
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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 |
Quote:
|
If you run with low memory the paging will kill you - ram is pretty cheap these days, worth the spend
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 AM. |