[nSLUG] Re: Troubleshooting LCP & PAP on a Telus dialup NAS

Mike Spencer mspencer at tallships.ca
Fri Dec 12 15:27:17 AST 2014


Frank Geitzler wrote:

> I hope I haven't fouled things up too much by avoiding repeating
> the entire long message....

Not at all, Frank.

OTOH. I'm going to quote your post extensively as it's an outstanding
example of why I don't use Windoes at all.

> You have assumed that your provider will continue to "support" Win-XP.
> That might not be a valid assumption, where Microsoft has discontinued
> support for that release.  I had made a similar assumption, with regard
> to Symantic anti-virus.

The situations are dissimilar: executable code versus datacom
protocols.

> I continue to use an old Microsoft database product, Visual Foxpro,
> for which Microsoft dropped support a number of years ago.  My
> development package was several releases out of date, but continued
> to do what I needed on Win-XP, and the .exe files it created would
> work on Win-7.  The development package itself, however, would not
> work on Win--7, so I continued to use Win-XP.  When time came to
> renew my anti-virus from Symantic, I attempted to do so -only to be
> told that I did not have the most up-to-date Internet-Explorer
> release,....

We won't sell you a burger & fries because you're driving a 10 year-old
car.   

> ...and couldn't download that anti-virus update (part of the update
> Symantic process was to delete my old anti-virus package first
> -which I did).  I couldn't get the current Internet-Explorer because
> XP was no longer supported, and I wouldn't want to do a download and
> installation of it without active anti-virus anyway -Catch-22!

Which is one of the reasons I abandoned Windoes as soon as I had a
Pentium CPU.  I've only hit that kind of problem twice with Linux, bit
involving proprietary software (Netscape fails with recent lib update,
Maple V requires libc5).

> You may be correct in assuming that your provider will continue to
> support XP, or you may have assurances from your provider that they
> will continue to do so.  Even so, you might want to consider having
> some other backup solution in place.

Well, the backup solution for wonky broadband is in place already: two
separate dialup providers and POTS.  In fact, the cost of going to
Eastlink Rural Wireless would be *added* to our telecom expenses since
we'd only feel secure if we kept both of our dialup services as well.

Back to your original point: I doubt (but I'm ready to be corrected)
that a datacom service is going to instruct TCP/IP, Ethernet, PPPoE or
other such protocols to check the OS ID.  The present problem with
LCP/PPP isn't that the server is seeing my Linux and refusing to talk
to it.  It's that the server implements, as default behavior, the
poorly- or un-specified part of the protocol in a way that is
anticipated by Windoes -- the server code may have been written by M$
coders -- but which isn't the *obvious* default behavior and which is
opaque to scrutiny.

Thanks for your concern,
- Mike

-- 
Michael Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada       .~. 
                                                           /V\ 
mspencer at tallships.ca                                     /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/                        ^^-^^





More information about the nSLUG mailing list