Re: [Rule-list] 486 not 386

[Eugene Wong]

> From: Michael Fratoni <address@hidden>
> And I appreciate your patience. Are you refering to vi on the rule
> machine?

Yes.

> If so, try nano. It's easier to deal with.

Thanks, I will. It's much appreciated.

> Hrmm, does 'ifconfig eth0' reveal anything useful?

I was going to say, "Not that I can tell.". Upon close inspection, 
everything seems to be working okay, except for the fact that RX packets and 
bytes are at 0. I did some monkeying around with the network card and the 
lights aren't doing what they were supposed to. I thought that was due to 
something else. Maybe I did a bad soldering job or soldered the wrong wires. 
I'll look into it a little more and get back to you. If it was the network 
card, I'm going to feel so bad for wasting so much of your time.

> > Also, the Rule computer couldn't even ping the computer sitting right
> > next to it. I using this computer, connected to the Internet, as I
> > type.
>
> Right. The interface isn't up, or the cable is bad, or.... Could be a lot
> of things.

I just checked the pinging again, and this time I can't seem to ping the 
Rule computer from this one. It must be a hardware problem.

Hope this helps.


Sincerely, and with thanks,
Eugene T.S. Wong


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com