Urmas Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 OK, I installed the flash plugin. The speedtest site still says no go.Oh, and I did install Automatix. Haven't even had a minute to look at it yet. I will... OK... rather than chasing our tails with this one: 1. Uninstall it.2. Let Automatix do it for you.3. Close and reopen Firefox. Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted July 25, 2007 Author Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Using Automatix, I installed the latest flashplayer 9 for Linux (Automatix first removed the previous 'flashplugin-nonfree'). Still no go with the speed test site. Says my flash isn't up to par. :hmm:I have disabled NoScript for the speed test site.Could AdBlock Plus be interfering? All it seems to block on the speed test page is 2 Ookla ads. OK... rather than chasing our tails with this one: 1. Uninstall it.2. Let Automatix do it for you.3. Close and reopen Firefox. Ahhh-Close and reopen Firefox. brb... Edited July 25, 2007 by Cluttermagnet Quote
Urmas Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Could AdBlock Plus be interfering?Doubt it... works fine here with AdBlock Plus. Do you have JavaScript enabled? Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted July 25, 2007 Author Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Yay! Speedtest runs now. 8226 kb/s down, 1584 kb/s up. Latency 82 ms. Is good? So so? Doubt it... works fine here with AdBlock Plus. Do you have JavaScript enabled?Yes. Running NoScript extension to Firefox. Javascript permitted for the speedtest site. Edited July 25, 2007 by Cluttermagnet Quote
Urmas Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Yay! Speedtest runs now. 8226 kb/s down, 1584 kb/s up. Latency 82 ms. Is good? So so?Up to specs. (8/1... right?) Latency... depends very much on distance between you and the test server you choose; if I choose a Finnish server (distance 200 miles) I get something like 60-70 ms... just for fun I just chose a server from Italy... 150 ms. Another one from Calgary... 250 ms. Edited July 25, 2007 by Urmas Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted July 25, 2007 Author Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Up to specs. (8/1... right?) Yep, I guess so. Advertised as a 6Mb/s service with a 'burst' feature of 12Mb/s for the first 10MB of data downloaded, then throttles back to 6Mb/s.BTW I'm not sure how to interpret the latency figure but I suspect that is 'fairly good'(?) I got 82 ms for <50 miles server distance.Edit: New York, ~200 miles, down 8046 kb/s, up 1594 kb/s, latency 92 ms. Edited July 25, 2007 by Cluttermagnet Quote
Urmas Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 I got 82 ms for <50 miles server distance.Your results will vary (time of day etc.). But... 80 ms is OK. Repeat after me:I am supersonic... I am supersonic... I am supersonic... I am supersonic... Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted July 25, 2007 Author Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Up to specs. (8/1... right?) Latency... depends very much on distance between you and the test server you choose; if I choose a Finnish server (distance 200 miles) I get something like 60-70 ms... just for fun I just chose a server from Italy... 150 ms. Another one from Calgary... 250 ms. Cool. I'll play with speedtest for a few days, try other servers. Then I may start getting some idea of how I'm doing. But yes, it appears to be in spec, pretty darned fast. I'd have to get really, really spoiled before I couldn't live without optical fiber. Edit: I reran the local test, results down/up almost identical, but latency was 47 ms vs, 82 ms. Obviously need to run it a lot more times to get a true idea... Edited July 25, 2007 by Cluttermagnet Quote
Urmas Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 I'd have to get really, really spoiled before I couldn't live without optical fiber. The dialup nightmare... fading away. Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted July 25, 2007 Author Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Your results will vary (time of day etc.). But... 80 ms is OK. Repeat after me:I am supersonic... I am supersonic... I am supersonic... I am supersonic... Yesh. You have convinced me- I am supersonic. The dialup nightmare... fading away. Yes- but it will be the skeleton in my closet. I'm going to keep 1 dialup ISP and 1 dialup phone line for the forseeable future. I've seen my friends too many times without email because the Comcast email servers are acting up. :w00t:Also, Comcast occasionally gets knocked completely out during summer lightning storms here, dialup is far more reliable in that regard. Edited July 25, 2007 by Cluttermagnet Quote
Urmas Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) ... email servers are acting up. Everything is... relative? TeliaSonera Moves Email Servers to Evade Swedish Spying LawsIn connection to the relocation of Finnish customers' e-mail services, the e-mail service production is going to be upgraded to ensure its functionality in all circumstances. The relocation process is estimated to be finalized by the end of first quarter 2008. Edited July 25, 2007 by Urmas Quote
ross549 Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Edit: New York, ~200 miles, down 8046 kb/s, up 1594 kb/s, latency 92 ms.As far as latency goes, anything under 100ms should be considered very good. Cox has the same "boost" feature...... gives you a bit of extra speed at the start of a download to help get the file in quicker. his helps for the smaller files, such as mp3s or flash video.I'm glad it is working well. :)Adam Quote
Guest LilBambi Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Yay! Speedtest runs now. 8226 kb/s down, 1584 kb/s up. Latency 82 ms. Is good? So so?Yes. Running NoScript extension to Firefox. Javascript permitted for the speedtest site.Bambi hums Kermit's song... It not easy being green......:hysterical:That is so awesome!! :thumbsup:Congratulations!!! Quote
zlim Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Clutter, I have Comcast and I can't ever remember losing internet connection. Of course, I play it safe, when there is a bad thunderstorm or if we're going away for 3 or more days, I pull the plugs on everything including the tv sets.I also have never set up an email address with Comcast. I don't like to be tied into any ISP for my email. That way, if I switch, I don't have to inform lots of people where to find me.As far as broadband, I'm very cheap but I'd sooner get rid of my car (and use my hubby's) before I'd give up my cable connection. Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted July 26, 2007 Author Posted July 26, 2007 (edited) Bambi hums Kermit's song... It not easy being green...... Froggy double entendre? That is so awesome!! :thumbsup:Congratulations!!! Thanks, Fran! Well, it merely took h*l* freezing over to get me subscribed. Heh! The perfect storm of: unbundled services 'a la carte', a low rate for a year, and no contract, to boot.Anyone betting whether Clutter will still have cable internet in month 13? I think it could go either way. I have overcome addictions in the past (chocolate). Edited July 26, 2007 by Cluttermagnet Quote
Urmas Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 Anyone betting whether Clutter will still have cable internet...Naah... where's the fun... p=1.00 Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted July 31, 2007 Author Posted July 31, 2007 I want to stick a url here as a reminder to myself. This relates back to Urmas's post #44 on page 2 of this thread.Psychocats- Installing UbuntuHe lists my page of interest as a different url for Dapper users: Psychocats- Installing Ubuntu Dapper/EdgyI just did another Linux installation, I'm losing count how many. This one is a copy of Dapper 6.06 for my sister, on a machine that is dual booting with Win98SE. Each time I go through the process, I have to struggle just a little to remember things, but that is good. I get a little better each time, and I'm starting to feel reasonably confident with the task now. I sure get a lot out of 'mining' this long thread for nuggets of information.This time. I was having trouble during the install because I forgot one little bit of syntax for commenting the Windows partition during the install. I left out the leading slash (/). Going back and seeing how Psychocat set up his Ubuntu install quickly reminded me about how to do it right. He uses "/windows" in his example. The install then went flawlessly. I now have it all updated and almost ready to turn over to my sister to play with. This will be the 3rd person I'm sharing Ubuntu with. I hope to get a lot of friends working in Linux eventually. And yes, I'll hold their hands to get them there. It's worth it. Quote
Urmas Posted July 31, 2007 Posted July 31, 2007 I hope to get a lot of friends working in Linux eventually. And yes, I'll hold their hands to get them there. It's worth it.Preach It, Brother Clutter! Quote
V.T. Eric Layton Posted July 31, 2007 Posted July 31, 2007 Preach It, Brother Clutter! Ah! The annual meeting of the Ubuntu Gurus Linux Yodelers... UGLY, for short. That's a good pic of you on the left there, Brother Urmas. Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted August 1, 2007 Author Posted August 1, 2007 Boy.My thread is getting colorful. Quote
V.T. Eric Layton Posted August 1, 2007 Posted August 1, 2007 Boy.My thread is getting colorful. It happens. Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted August 1, 2007 Author Posted August 1, 2007 Here's my 'dumb question of the week':I was reading the excellent article Bruno listed here under "Linux Vs. Mac: Which Is The Better Alternative" and I got to thinking (always dangerous!) On the subject of 'networking', I know that a lot of folks set up their computers so they can share data, share printers, etc. 'across a network'. I have never done this under Win98SE, having never felt a compelling need for it, and knowing that it could be a major security hole if not properly secured. That being said, I now have a multi-computer setup runing as a wired-only, ethernet network behind a router, as a result of my recent conversion to high speed cable internet. I'm simply wondering if that gives me, by default, the ability for my various machines to 'see each other' over the network and exchange data? Not that I really need that capability just yet, but it might be nice to use the capability if it is there. Is this something that is already enabled? (I doubt that) Or is it something that is simple to enable with a few command line actions?BTW for purposes of this discussion, let's asume there are no Windows machines at all on the network, only various Ubuntu Linux boxes connected together. That's actually true, so far, and I'm not very interested in learning now to enable networking in any of my legacy 98SE boxes. But then, although I may soon allow only my Linux boxes to access the internet, it might be 'interesting' at some point to learn networking in 98SE strictly for file sharing over a network. But let's treat that as a separate and lesser issue for now.One last thought- I was very pleased at how automatic networking has been under Ubuntu Dapper 6.06 and Feisty 7.04. These distros are set up biased to find and configure an ethernet conection by default, and they do this very well indeed (somewhat at the expense of dialup configuration). I've been pleased with how effortless the networking has been, so far as acquiring internet access that way. Quote
Urmas Posted August 1, 2007 Posted August 1, 2007 Here's how I did it... with a little help from the usual suspects.http://forums.scotsnewsletter.com/index.ph...74&hl=samba Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted August 2, 2007 Author Posted August 2, 2007 Thanks, Urmas-I think I'm going to put this sort of file sharing on the back burner for now. What little file sharing I do can be handled by floppies, zip disks, flash drives, etc. Your thread is quite informative. It's good to see there is more than one way to do this. Presently, I'm working at a more basic level in Ubuntu. I still need more practice and experience with basic files work- permissions, users, manipulating files, etc. I am getting lots and lots of daily use from Ubuntu these days. Although I still do turn to 98SE for certain tasks, I'm doing an increasing percentage of my daily work on my Ubuntu boxes now. Maybe 70-80 percent now? I'm slowly getting there. Almost all of my online work is now in Ubuntu- it's only laziness in setting up pop3 email in Ubuntu that is keeping it from being 100 percent use right now. My migration plan is working about as expected. BTW when I recently set up my sister's computer to dual boot 98SE and Ubuntu Dapper, it was a real eye opener. It is sooooo easy to set up everything in Ubuntu, so very tedious to set up all the patches manually in 98SE, plus all the security software and all the familiar helper applications. What a big difference! An unfair comparison, of course- it would be more fair to compare to XP or Vista. Whatever. It actually is a fair comparison for me in terms of how I actually operate. No XP or Vista here on premises to compare to. I don't want them. :w00t:Ironically, I'm composing this post on the 98SE side. I'm on this box mainly to download my emails from the server after sniffing them with Mailwasher. And I'm sending this via dialup (choke!) :'( Now back to Ubuntu and broadband cable internet... Quote
striker Posted August 2, 2007 Posted August 2, 2007 The simplest I can think of is a dedicated partition, either fat32 or ext3, and make that dedicated partition available in the fstab file in every installed distro on the machine. Say you have a rig with four distros installed and you have by instance one partition left. Make that partition a fat32. Now in every installed distros you can make available to that distro the dedicated fat32 partition. When you need it you can mount it and get access to it, when you're done you can unmount it again. Would be a perfect thing to share your music or something like that between all the distros on that one machine. Quote
Cluttermagnet Posted August 3, 2007 Author Posted August 3, 2007 The simplest I can think of is a dedicated partition, either fat32 or ext3, and make that dedicated partition available in the fstab file in every installed distro on the machine. Say you have a rig with four distros installed and you have by instance one partition left. Make that partition a fat32. Now in every installed distros you can make available to that distro the dedicated fat32 partition. Hi, striker-Yes, I have kept that idea in mind every time I set up a copy of Ubuntu dual booting with 98SE. I usually make an extra FAT32 partition for sharing.As for sharing between all my different machines, I'm just going to stick with removable media for now. I'll figure out the networking needed later. Quote
Urmas Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 (edited) As for sharing between all my different machines, I'm just going to stick with removable media for now. I'll figure out the networking needed later.Oh, I didn't have any compelling need to do that, either... just the good old "because". If you right click on a folder, and choose "share", here's what follows:I went by Samba... gotta be installed in all (Linux) computers you're gonna share stuff with. After that it's surprisingly simple... my blond moment was when I didn't realize that (Firestarter) firewalls in both my machines needed to be told to allow the traffic.A "centralized place" for managing the folders you are sharing / want to share is System -> Administration -> Shared FoldersIronically, I'm composing this post on the 98SE side. I'm on this box mainly to download my emails from the server after sniffing them with Mailwasher. And I'm sending this via dialup (choke!) Clutter glutton for punishment! EDIT: How about installing VirtualBox and using 98SE "from there"? Edited August 3, 2007 by Urmas Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.