[pchelpers] Re: Networking - Calling on all computer gurus forhelp
- From: "Ekhart GEORGI (last name last)" <Ekhart.GEORGI@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:19:30 +0200
Hi Scott
Finally have time to answer. No hurry answering these comments and
questions, just curious.
>>>It IS easy. Try it in DOS, Win 3.1, or original Win 95 and you'll
>>>understand in a hurry! :)
>
>
> EGlnl> Yes, you're right, but having the cheek to call something good
> EGlnl> or excellent when it is (or recently became) only better than
> EGlnl> bad is the basis of all M$ lies, and typical of all monopolies
> EGlnl> and lack of freedom in society in general too.
>
> Depending upon the situation, it really IS simple. For instance, at
> one location that I do work at, I used to be able to take a
> fresh-loaded Win2K system, plug in a network cable, and get internet
> access. It's not so simple anymore, for various reasons, but that's
> because of the need to improve security, keep people from hitting porn
> sites, etc.
I'm sure you're right, i don't have much experience. I was just really
annoyed at the need to do an incredible amount of research to learn how
to connect an XP to an existing 98+95 home network and at the need to
install a protocol missing on a brand new M$ computer because the
default protocol is dangerous for a home network.
> EGlnl> I find it incredible that MS doesn't offer NetBEUI on their Web site
> EGlnl> since it's not in laptops and these are apparently usually (always?)
> EGlnl> sold without a CD.
>
> Well, they DO want you to pay extra money for the Pro version. And if
> the laptop comes with Pro, but NetBEUI isn't on the drive or any of
> the CDs, then that's between you and he laptop vendor.
If the default protocol, TCP/IP, is not safe for home networking,
NetBEUI should be on every new laptop, not just the pro version. The
very least would be to provide it on the Web.
> EGlnl> If i've understood correctly the compatibility needs of older MS(!)
> EGlnl> computers and the security issues involved, NetBEUI should be
> EGlnl> automatically installed as the default home network protocol in all
> EGlnl> computers sold to normal consumers.
>
> MS has a noticeable lead time beween deciding upon goals for a project
> and putting the finished product on the market. Apple has it easy;
> they only have to support a very limited number of platforms. MS has
> to support several different CPU, motherboard, video card, network
> card, etc., brands and many models, many different kinds of
> interfaces, including ISA, VESA, and MCA, etc. Apple supports a very
> limied set of platforms which makes things vastly easier for them.
There seem to be no sensible or honest reasons for discontinuing support
for NetBEUI, for making it very hard to find, and for not having it as
the default home networking protocol. This has nothing to do with lead
time, as far as i can see. Home networking works fine with NetBEUI, it's
dangerous with TCP, NetBEUI works fine with XP. MS discontinued it
apparently out of a combination of callousness, greed, stupidity, and
slyness that is typical of MS and other monopoly companies.
If all the hours i spent on this were not a waste of time and i've
understood the two basic "proofs" of MS dishonesty and sloppiness in
this matter correctly, they are these: 1) MS knows that older MS
computers usually use NetBEUI for home networking. 2) MS doesn't care
about the security concerns voiced by many experts about using TCP for
this.
Not having NetBEUI automatically installed as the default home network
protocol in all computers sold to normal consumers and not even
providing it anymore looks to me like typical MS behavior. A) MS tries
to force people to buy new computers and to even force them to get rid
of "old" computers by making it difficult to use them even for basic
tasks like being a backup drive. B) MS only deals with security problems
when they get catastrophic enough to get enough people planning to
switch to other manufacturers despite the problems involved with using a
minority product in a monopoly market.
As you know but less than perhaps a few percent of MS computer users do,
MS programs like OE and IE are designed to by default run anything
thrown at them in violation of common sense and even of international
Internet standards. In addition, all services and other ways of
accessing a computer are enabled by default on MS computers even though
these are useless for most users and dangerous for everyone. All this
makes it much easier to write malicious scripts and virus programs for
MS products than any others, and this would remain true even if 90% of
all computers ran Linux and Mozilla.
> EGlnl> Although i'm no expert, i'm quite sure it would be possible to program
> EGlnl> computers in such a way that a normal consumer wouldn't have to do more
> EGlnl> than plug a cable into two computers to have them recognize each other
> EGlnl> and wouldn't have to do more than plug one of them into a phone jack
> and
> EGlnl> type in a phone number to get Internet connectivity.
>
> This is entirely up to the ISP. Many ISPs *are* that easy; plug phone
> line in, start the dial-up networking wizard, enter phone #, username
> and password, and you're off. It's plug-it-in-and-go for cable
> internet, too. Much of the extra work comes from fine-tuning,
> home networking concerns, etc.
You're right about the second part, but i only added that as an
afterthought. An XP computer should be able to recognize an already
existing 98+95 home network running on NetBEUI and be able to fit in
automatically instead of making the user waste a lot of time
reconfiguring the other computers (which apparently doesn't even work
with 95!) or installing NetBEUI on the XP after searching for it and
instructions on how and whether to do this.
Thanks for the IPX/SPX and the shutdown info.
> A cable/DSL modem basically converts an internet connection from one
> medium (cable/DSL) to another one (CAT5/USB). If you're going
> directly from a cable/DSL modem to your computer, you definitely need
> a firewall.
I've got firewall software on all my computers, but i thought that an
attack from outside could be made to look like it was coming from one of
the other computers and make the firewall think it was just file sharing.
> A router converts from one network to another, so that, for example, a local
> (home) network with multiple IP addresses can connect to the outside
> world via a single IP address (which acts as an inbound firewall; many
> firewalls work in exactly this way).
I finally found out that my computers get three different IP addresses.
Does that mean the LAN is connected to the outside world with these or
does my combination modem/router hide them behind another one? I'm sure
you know an easy way to find out if there's only one address visible
from outside.
Thanks, Ekhart
Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig>
Freelists login at //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
List archives at //www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers
PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig
Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.
Other related posts:
