Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #159178 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-15 08:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-15 15:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 75 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 08:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 08:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 14:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 15:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 16:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-10-15 21:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 22:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 01:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 10:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 09:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 06:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-16 00:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 01:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 09:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 10:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 11:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 16:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-10-15 22:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 18:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-17 21:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 23:00 +0200
Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 17:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 18:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 18:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-18 21:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 21:20 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 22:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-19 05:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 22:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-18 23:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 18:20 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 23:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-20 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 02:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-19 10:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 00:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-18 01:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-18 10:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-17 21:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Martin Smith <lists@rakupottery.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 09:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 10:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 15:40 +0200
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 09:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qlzwS-5dK-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159482 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:37:40PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: [...] > > I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so > > if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead! > > Thank you! I accept. Fortunately for you, and sadly for me, I'm not allowed > by my doctors to drink Chateau d'Yquem, so I shall have to toast you in fizzy > mineral water. Wouh. Bad doctors, bad. In my case it's the bankers. No Yquem for us :-( > > Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. > > I do believe you! Though how on earth you managed to sit through what we were > saying, and especially what I was saying off list, without checking your > headers or settings, does somewhat bemuse me. :-/ > > The trouble is, I know what I mean to type, so that is what I see. Presumably > you knew what your settings were supposed to be, so that is what you saw. Something like that, yes. Perhaps the root of most stubbornness. > > Hanlon's razor [...] > The older I get, the truer I see that that is. > > I apologise for misspelling your name. That is something I try to be > meticulous about, but I had never till now noticed the accent. Though I had > noticed that you do not use an initial capital. No worries. I moved a couple of times across Europe and my spelling changed accordingly. I don't consider it a part of my personality :-) regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYl5M8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaOOQCeL8hBQsfhVc+je5xopmSUPXKu g/AAniqGQIyMarS2lC6gd3/goV4CJrZh =5XNB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 02:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qmbCa-22z-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159507 |
One comment to the thread subject, rather than to any particular post. We would do well to remember that trying to participate in a mailing list or a newsgroup with an MUA is an inherent contradiction in purpose. Put another way, ordinary e-mail and postings to newsgroups and mailing lists are two rather different kinds of things, even though they share certain common features and have certain features that appear the same but are not. Joel Rees -- http://defining-computers.blogspot.jp/p/what-on-earth-are-internet-service.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 10:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qleiK-7D6-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159434 |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:30AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. As in a another post of mine where I mentioned that because the list is open then it makes sense to CC a poster if they appear to be newbie and you're not sure if they're subscribed. Also I've seen some posts where the OP has asked to be CC'd and subsequent replies have been to the list only. It may seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm suggesting that discretion is required. I have seen some threads where the OP has requested help installing Debian and there's been about 10 replies with requests for more information and the OP hasn't replied to any of them, doesn't it make sense to CC the OP in that case, just to at least ensure that no one is 'talking to a brick wall'? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qlfyb-19G-61@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159440 |
On Monday 19 October 2015 09:44:56 Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:30AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. > > As in a another post of mine where I mentioned that because the list is > open then it makes sense to CC a poster if they appear to be newbie and > you're not sure if they're subscribed. > > Also I've seen some posts where the OP has asked to be CC'd and > subsequent replies have been to the list only. > > It may seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm suggesting that > discretion is required. I have seen some threads where the OP has > requested help installing Debian and there's been about 10 replies with > requests for more information and the OP hasn't replied to any of them, > doesn't it make sense to CC the OP in that case, just to at least ensure > that no one is 'talking to a brick wall'? At the risk of also seeming to contradict myself, I (almost) agree. I was recently cc'ing someone who was having trouble with emails from the list (as were several other people). But that is quite different from replying personally to everyone who posts to the list, with a cc only to the list because ... Because what? the whole point of a mailing list is that it sends copies to everybody. But the one point where I disagree is the sending a personal copy to anyone who appears to be a newbie. I would want some sort of evidence that it was required. Replying to the list from a personal copy is actually not easy in some email clients. A newbie especially needs access to all the resources of the list. Not replying to requests for information is a common occurrence, that has as much to do with personality as with the destination of emails. And yes, people do sometimes forget to cc someone who has requested it. Kind people then sometimes forward the replies. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkHGb-1MG-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159337 |
On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > like a charm. No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a ***** nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list. This is a confounded nuisance. And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC . We are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkIVz-3P5-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159352 |
On Sat, October 17, 2015 4:58 pm, Lisi Reisz wrote: > And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC ... Speaking of the Code of Conduct, a matter of much greater import is a severe constraint which is being forced upon e-mail users in general by the stupid and widespread practice of (1) associating an e-mail account with a cellular telephone number and (2) configuring so-called "smartphones" to sound an alert when a e-mail is received. One of the great advantages of e-mail is that it allows each party to work at his own convenience. Each party composes messages, reads messages, and replies to messages at a time which is convenient for him, taking little or no thought as to the time zone or time of day of the recipient. But with the advent of the absurd concept by which the smartphone rings whenever an e-mail message is received, some of those with whom I correspond are angered because I frequently dispatch e-mail messages in the wee hours of the morning -- such as 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock, and 4 o'clock -- with the result that the smartphone awakens them from sleep. I received a complaint from an associate who happens to be a computer-illiterate physician. When I explained the matter to him, he protested that professional responsibility demands that he answer his telephone whenever it rings, day or night. I replied that he is acting stupidly to have e-mail messages ring a number on which he habitually receives emergency phone calls; and that, moreover, he is acting stupidly to configure his smartphone ring at an inopportune time to announce every e-mail which arrives, unless he has implemented a mechanism to block spam as well as non-critical messages received late-night and early-morning. But the one who complains of being awakened in the middle of the night by an e-mail message is the same one who is fascinated by the ability of "Siri" to recognize simple voice commands. So I see little hope for remedy, other than a routine, daily deluge of e-mail spam which is sent between the hours of midnight and five A.M. until such time as smartphone users tire of being awakened from sleep. Russ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkQq6-6yA-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159357 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:12:53PM -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > On Sat, October 17, 2015 4:58 pm, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC ... > > Speaking of the Code of Conduct, a matter of much greater import is a > severe constraint which is being forced upon e-mail users in general by > the stupid and widespread practice of (1) associating an e-mail account > with a cellular telephone number and (2) configuring so-called > "smartphones" to sound an alert when a e-mail is received. E-mail has never been in the interest of Big Corp: it's fairly decentralized, has stable, open standards which are not totally decommoditized[1] and it kinda works. Can't be really monetized (at least not with a high margin). You'll see Big Corp trying to (and perhaps succeeding in) kill e-mail, starting by implementing horrendous clients (Outlook, anyone) and MTAs (won't name names here). This very company is running around my employer (a biggish company too) croaking "Mail is dead!" "Use Tah Cloud!". Well, duh. The case you mention above is just another brick in this wall. Regards [1] http://www.levien.com/free/decommoditizing.html - -- tomas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjP6oACgkQBcgs9XrR2kawCACeKeTSZq40fNQ7CRwX/TfQyTT6 c+cAnRDEqkivMEx/qbhjoDsEGYxnDHwo =0lkq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkQq6-6yA-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159352 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > > like a charm. > > No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a ***** > nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list. > This is a confounded nuisance. And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC . We > are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so. Procmail does a wonderful job of that. Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) But harmful and that. Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjPaIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaZ/QCfdZq+IeVtnEbS6NINvxF6EOiK V1oAni8WIydYt6WXxbjPuU5ltqr1Eohe =EHPh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkRFw-8gp-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159352 |
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > > like a charm. > > No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a ***** > nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list. > This is a confounded nuisance. And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC . We > are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so. Yeah, but the silly thing is that the list is open; anyone can post to it, but you only get a reply if you are subscribed. It's been discussed before, and it seems the consensus is that the onus is on the original poster to hunt down the replies via the archives or via google. I honestly don't think many people would do that and more likely think they are being ignored which means ditching Debian for something else particularly if it was an installation problem. Most of us tend to know the regulars on this list and know not to CC them on replies but in the case of where you are not sure and the post seems like it's comming from a newcomer it makes more sense to CC them. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkFuG-77M-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159322 |
On Sat 17 Oct 2015 at 18:51:22 +0300, Reco wrote: > Inability to read OP's mail carefully and in detail did you a > disservice. You see, OP's problem was not about printer configuration. > It was about Debian's network configuration. It would be nice if the OP issued a disclaimer that Debian was at all involved in his problem. In the absence of one I'll state that, although the amount of help he received from -user was considerable, Debian had nothing to do with the issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Smith <lists@rakupottery.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjLsu-8id-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159178 |
On 15/10/2015 06:34, rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) > consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think > also is router) and an ethernet switch. > > Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated > an ip address of 192.168.1.201. > > It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the > ip address. But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet". with most laser printers you can access their control interface with a browser, just connect your laptop directly to it and point your browser at the address the printer gives, this is assuming it does not have a front panel you can access, I dont off hand know the 2100. You will need to adjust the subnet on your laptop of course, but that is all. > > Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie > (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable. NetworkManager Applet > (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection. > > I though that perhaps a "cross-over" ethernet cable might be required, so > I placed an ethernet switch and two "straight" cables between the laptop > and the printer; but again NetworkManager Applet (0.9.10.0) failed to make > a connection. > > So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to connect a > computer directly to a printer without a router to manage the connection. > > And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. > If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I > think that the printer should utilize DHCP. > > At the moment I am ignorant concerning the modem and/or router, because > they are hidden behind desks and boxes, so that visual inspection is going > to necessitate moving things in the office, which my associate is not > going to enjoy. > > Russ > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 10:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjLLQ-sL-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159181 |
On Thu, October 15, 2015 2:33 am, Martin Smith wrote: > with most laser printers you can access their control interface with a > browser, just connect your laptop directly to it and point your browser at > the address the printer gives, this is assuming it does not have a front > panel you can access, I dont off hand know the 2100. You will need to > adjust the subnet on your laptop of course, but that is all. No, the hp2100tn has no panel; only a pair of buttons and a few LEDs. And the 2100 may be a little old to have a web administrative interface. I did, after much searching, finally find some information regarding changing parameters using telnet. Using the browser also occurred to me. But the little icon of the NetworkManager Applet kept spinning, so no connection was made. And I tried to create a new network connection in NetworkManager Applet, using 192.168.100.x, but at that point it was getting too late in a long day for me to think clearly. So I am thinking now that my real need is to learn enough about NetworkManager Applet that I can create a new network connection. Russ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjLVw-DS-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159178 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500 rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) > consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I > think also is router) and an ethernet switch. > > Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which > indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201. > > It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure > the ip address. But the Windows command prompt did not understand > "telnet". I think you just missed it, until Win7 there was a Telnet client. You can install/enable one (genuine MS) on 8, I have done it but a while ago, the details are out there somewhere. > > Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie > (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable. NetworkManager Applet > (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection. > > I though that perhaps a "cross-over" ethernet cable might be > required, so I placed an ethernet switch and two "straight" cables > between the laptop and the printer; but again NetworkManager Applet > (0.9.10.0) failed to make a connection. Either way should work, only 10Mbit Ethernet connections cannot do this without a crossover cable, and are usually the best ways of talking to a new network device, without other devices adding confusion. Network Manager can be persuaded to create a new fixed IP address configuration to set your laptop to something in the 192.168.1. network. If you do not mark it 'Auto', NM will not attempt to use it without explicitly being told to, or of course you can delete the connection after use. Yes, there are simpler ways to set a fixed address, but if you already have NM running, it is easier to work with it than against it. You can, just about, persuade Win8 to use a fixed address, but NM is far easier. > > So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to > connect a computer directly to a printer without a router to manage > the connection. Yes. > > And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this > printer. If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP > server, then I think that the printer should utilize DHCP. > A printer, being a server, generally has a fixed IP address, and Windows will need to be given it. Modern printers often have an LCD display through which configurations can be made. I'd expect one with an Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration. > At the moment I am ignorant concerning the modem and/or router, > because they are hidden behind desks and boxes, so that visual > inspection is going to necessitate moving things in the office, which > my associate is not going to enjoy. > Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort of network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for which you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't need to see it physically. If this password is unavailable, and it may well still be whatever Google tells you is the factory default for this model, then try setting the printer to the address adjacent to the router's. The chances are that the router address pool has a gap of several addresses around that of the router. If you really want to get fancy and you have admin access to the router, you can set the printer to DHCP, note its MAC address and then tell the router DHCP server to make a reservation for a particular address for the printer within its pool. It will then always give this address to the printer, but by DHCP. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 10:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjMox-1d8-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159184 |
On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:18 am, Joe wrote: > I think you just missed it, until Win7 there was a Telnet client. You > can install/enable one (genuine MS) on 8, I have done it but a while ago, > the details are out there somewhere. Installing anything on the other guy's machine is asking for trouble; that is why I brought along my own laptop. And now I have the printer here. I plan not to go back until it is configured. > Either way should work, only 10Mbit Ethernet connections cannot do this > without a crossover cable That is good to know. > Network > Manager can be persuaded to create a new fixed IP address configuration > to set your laptop to something in the 192.168.1. network. If you do not > mark it 'Auto', NM will not attempt to use it without explicitly being > told to, or of course you can delete the connection after use. Understood. That is my project after I get a bit of sleep. >> So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to >> connect a computer directly to a printer without a router to manage the >> connection. > > Yes. That is good to know. > A printer, being a server, generally has a fixed IP address, and > Windows will need to be given it. At the moment, the office has one computer and a USB inkjet printer. It appears to me that not many people today have a laser printer. > Modern printers often have an LCD > display through which configurations can be made. But not the hp2100tn. > I'd expect one with an > Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration. I have not yet found mention of one regarding the hp2100tn. > Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the > router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort of > network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for which > you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't need to see > it physically. I am beginning to regret that I got into this. The modem or modem-router is supplied by a small ISP which serves a rural region. The ISP may not allow the customer to change the configuration. > If this password is unavailable, ... > then try > setting the printer to the address adjacent to the router's. I though that likely is the case; the computer is 192.168.100.3, so the router likely is 192.168.100.1, so my plan was to try 192.168.100.2 for the printer. > If you really want to get fancy and you have admin access to the > router, you can set the printer to DHCP, note its MAC address and then > tell > the router DHCP server to make a reservation for a particular address for > the printer within its pool. It will then always give this address to the > printer, but by DHCP. Understood; I have done that from time to time. Thanks, Joe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjQVb-7Re-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159187 |
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 03:45:24 -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:18 am, Joe wrote: > > > I'd expect one with an > > Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration. > > I have not yet found mention of one regarding the hp2100tn. nmap <IP address of printer> > > Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the > > router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort of > > network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for which > > you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't need to see > > it physically. > > I am beginning to regret that I got into this. The modem or modem-router > is supplied by a small ISP which serves a rural region. The ISP may not > allow the customer to change the configuration. Fit the printer to the router - not the router to the printer. > > If this password is unavailable, ... > > then try > > setting the printer to the address adjacent to the router's. > > I though that likely is the case; the computer is 192.168.100.3, so the > router likely is 192.168.100.1, so my plan was to try 192.168.100.2 for > the printer. The factory defaults for the printer will use DHCP. Let it and the router sort out an address. This involves much less expenditure of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web