Ethernet problem
I have an interesting Ethernet problem. I'm on Potato, dually set up --
on two different HDDs
with a Win98 box. I use loadlin to boot me up to linux, so I actually
have a windows menu-bar
item to bring me into linux. It's the way I like it, since I *worry*
about dual-boot systems when
you have to reinstall one system or the other. Win98 is my main boot.
Under Windoze, my ne2k-pci Ethernet registers INT 10, mem 0x1c00. I
also have a sound card -- I'm not sure if it works, since my speakers
don't, but it also registers to INT 10 without apparent conflict [and a
SCSI card, which works under Windoze, but is not currently identified
under Linux.]
So far, so good. I'm new to Linux, I don't really need more than all
that, and as I learn more I can set things up on my own. I have what I
need at the moment, anyhow.
Here's the problem: I also have Norton AntiVirus on the Win98 side, and
ZoneAlarm firewall. I just downloaded and ran their most recent
updater, and all of a sudden two problems cropped up: (1) Win98
suddenly started taking *real* long on the Antivirus stage, perhaps 1
time out of 3. (2) My ethernet card stopped responding under Linux
only. I looked back at the bootup, and saw that it was taking INT 0,
and was saying that this was unlikely to work.
So I hacked around, and discovered that linuxconfig would allow me to
set the INT on my card. So I did that. Everything was fine, I was back
on the web.
Three bootups later, I again got no card, INT 0 ... coincident with FSCK
running on every one of my partitions, saying something about it being a
regular process (some variable was maxed out).
Win98 still detected the card. But when I did a floppy boot under
Linux, I got the card again. So I went back and changed it again, and
just checked the file with the ETH0 options, and it's fine again.
What's going on? Why does the bootup process keep reverting to INT 0?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: