Newbie comments & queries
Hi, Brenda, dmane, et al.
I have had some success today. I took hephaustus to work and sat down and
had a network study session. (i haven't brought him home so excuse all the
typos)
I put imaginet's DNS into resolv.conf, checked out host.conf and
nsswitch.conf.
I made my domain name ians.castle as suggested.
The I ran wvdial. Wow! OK, problem, but things happened.
Initially permission to run pppd was denied and I had to either put a 'PPPD
Path' statement in the wvdial.conf file or change permissions. I did the first
for no good reason than it was easier. Having got this sorted out then we had
the following.
--> ppp negotiation detected
--> Warning: Could not modify /etc/ppp/pop-secrets : Permission denied
--> PAP (Password Identification Protocol) may be flaky
--> Warning: Could not modify /etc/ppp/pop-secrets : Permission denied
--> CHAP (Challenge Handshake) may be flaky
--> Starting pppd <date-time>
-->PPP daemon has died! (exit code = 242)
--> Disconnecting at <date-time>
--> Auto Reconnect will be attempted in 5 seconds
--> pppd error! Look at files in /var/log for an explanation.
Time ran out and will look in the log files tomorrow. I had a brief look and
found one with massive amounts of entries from diald at intervals of seconds
(sys.log Obviously it is trying but is not configure right. I thought this was
the problem having diald running at the same time as wvdial so killed it from
'top'. No change however so will have to look further at the log this weekend.
I need to get diald out of the system. I suppose that I can remove it from
init.d but would I not also have to remove the entry from each of the rc[0-6S]
files as well? Since update does an addition to these files (as used with the
numlock script), is there an automated removal sequence as well?
There are other things but they will have to wait until I bring hephaustus
home this weekend. Monday is a public holiday so have great hopes to be up
and running then at the latest.
Regards
Ian
Ian Balchin
Grahamstown, South Africa.
Reply to: