- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

*&(^$%^# Adaptec controller...

by Andy Stewart

HI all, I have an Adaptec 29160N which for reasons unknown refused to boot my hard drive directly. I put in the DVD and that booted, which then booted the hard drive, and Linux came up. Today, I decided to fix this problem. I updated the BIOS on the 29160N, thinking that was the problem. On the computer in the cellar, it successfully booted a 4.7GB SCSI drive. Success(!), or so I thought. When I put the 29160N back into the "good" computer, it wouldn't boot from any hard drive. I suspected that the 18GB and 36 GB drives might be too new for the 29160N. To make a longer story short, if "enable booting from CD" *and* "enable booting from disk" are both simultaneously enabled, no disk booting occurs. By turning off "enable booting from CD", one can succeed in booting from a hard disk. Stupid, idiotic firmware programmer from Adaptec ought to be shot... Remember this so you don't waste 2 hrs on a rainy afternoon figuring this out. :-) Andy -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA USA http://www.wlug.org

May 26, 2004

GNHLUG quarterly meeting to be held at USENIX Technical Conference

by Jon maddog Hall

Hi, I have been thinking about having the quarterly meeting of GNHLUG down in Boston at the USENIX Technical conference. This meeting would not only be open to all members of GNHLUG, but also members of BLU (the Boston Linux User's group, www.blu.org) and the Worcester Linux User's Group (www.wlug.org) I have contacted USENIX and they have a room for us on Thursday, July 1st from 7-9 P.M. EDT. Later that evening Ted Ts'o and I will be leading a more formal Linux BoF from 9-11. Both meetings will be at the Boston Marriott Copley Place. I am arranging a speaker now, but I did want you to at least hold that evening open for what should be an interesting quarterly meeting. md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux(R) International email: maddog(a)li.org 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the US and other countries.

May 24, 2004

Re: [Wlug] LTSP as a means of recycling old PCs...

by Dwight A. Ernest

Bill Smith wrote: > There's a post on Slashdot talking about LTSP... (Yeah, I posted it... <g>) > > The link is http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/22/223425&&mode=thread&tid=126&tid… > > There's one comment that really drives the point home: #9227112 ... > > Anyway, I know that there was a recent WLUG meeting about LTSP, so I thought this might be of interest. I think it was a Boston Linux Users Group meeting that talked about LTSP (my friend Dave Shevett was the presenter, and it's the only such meeting I've attended). I get "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." at that link. --Dwight

May 23, 2004

LTSP as a means of recycling old PCs...

by Bill Smith

There's a post on Slashdot talking about LTSP... (Yeah, I posted it... <g>) The link is http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/22/223425&&mode=thread&tid=126&tid… There's one comment that really drives the point home: #9227112 ... Anyway, I know that there was a recent WLUG meeting about LTSP, so I thought this might be of interest. -- William Smith wsmith(a)chezsmith.com Fall River, MA

May 23, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Creating web content with Linux

by Steve Freitag

On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 12:12, Andy Stewart wrote: > The questions are: What tools are available on Linux for creating web > content? Is there something akin to FrontPage for Linux? Nvu (http://www.nvu.com) is mentioned on page 10 of the June 2004 Linux Journal. >From the nvu.com website: "A complete Web Authoring System for Linux Desktop users to rival programs like FrontPage and Dreamweaver."

May 22, 2004

mouse scroll wheel

by Gregory Avedissian

I did a new install of SuSE 8.2, and my mouse scroll wheel no longer works. Previous install was on top of 7.2. Current XF86Config mouse section is identical to the one that worked. It also works when I boot into debian. I've tried adding the imwheel command to .xinitrc, but that didn't help. Maybe I don't understand the -W option. What's a GPM fifo? Is that the script file that starts gpm? If it is, I tried that, and it didn't work, either. Also tried adding and removing gpm from run-level services. Any ideas? Thanks, Greg

May 22, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Comcast dolts (mail server problem?)

by Don Levey

wlug-bounces(a)mail.wlug.org wrote: > I sent email to postmaster(a)comcast.net describing the problem. I > received an automated reply about "thank you for reporting network > abuse". This is getting downright comical, in a sad sort of way. They must be so used to reports on Comcast abuse that they use that for an autoresponder on postmaster as well as abuse. I lose track of the number of times I send reports to them about broken Windows installations on t heir cable modems spewing spam and viruses. -Don

May 21, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Re:Comcast dolts (mail server problem?)

by Jeff Kinz

Ignore this message, We are attempting to discern what "suspicious header is causing the filters to "pend" messages for moderator approval. On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 09:20:46AM -0400, Jeff Kinz wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 08:52:49AM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > > In Kmail, when I configure the email sending parameters, I fill in > > "smtp.comcast.net" as instructed. In the security section, there's a > > selection for "check what the server supports". I do this and it returns > > "encryption TLS, authentication method CRAM-MD5". Well, it does this *most* > > of the time. Once in a while, it returns "encryption SSL". > > > > Keeping the above in mind, I periodically get errors when sending email. The > > error is "authentication failure". However, if I immediately resend, it goes > > through just fine (sometimes after repeated resends). > > > > Note also that smtp.comcast.net maps to 4 different IP addresses. > > > > My theory is that the Comcast servers are not all using the same > > authentication method, and when I catch one that's not setup the same as my > > email program, I don't authenticate and thus cannot send email. Does this > > theory seem reasonable? > > > > I tried to explain my theory to Comcast tech support who asked me to reboot > > Windows, and then complained about my unsupported email client. When I asked > > to speak to the system administrator for the email server, they refused. > > Comcast can't get into their heads that there might be an intelligent user or > > two using their service, and that all problems aren't the fault of the user. > > Sigh...any thoughts ? > > Thoughts beyond what **ses most mass-market broadband providers are ? :) > > I would set up a script to send an email to yourself routed thru an > outside node (I can give you a user a kinz.org that will just forward > stuff back to you). have it periodically emit an email that you can > easily filter out and send to dev null. > > > Set up tcpdump to capture the smtp and auth data. > > See which IP's are using which auth method, (or verify that > there is something else going on... ). > > I use comcast w/sendmail and mutt. All my email is sent out thru > Comcast's smtp service. iMy smtp auth flags are set to "A", whetever > that means. (Can't find it in the bat book! ) > > > -- > Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. > "jkinz(a)kinz.org" is copyright 2004. > Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at > www.kinz.org/policy.html (if you could get there .. ) > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -- Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. "jkinz(a)kinz.org" is copyright 2004. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at www.kinz.org/policy.html (if you could get there .. )

May 21, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Comcast dolts (mail server problem?)

by Andy Stewart

I sent email to postmaster(a)comcast.net describing the problem. I received an automated reply about "thank you for reporting network abuse". This is getting downright comical, in a sad sort of way. -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA USA http://www.wlug.org

May 21, 2004

Re: [Wlug] GPG - web of trust

by Frank Sweetser

There's a good explanation with more of the nitty gritty details in the online manual at http://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html#AEN335 -- Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu WPI Network Engineer GPG fingerprint = 6174 1257 129E 0D21 D8D4 E8A3 8E39 29E3 E2E8 8CEC

May 21, 2004

Re: [Wlug] GPG - web of trust

by Josh Huber

Frank Sweetser <fs(a)WPI.EDU> writes: > If I know who to look for in between , I can then find a path to the > signature I'm looking for. Unfortuatelly, there's no good way that > I know of to automatically find the shortest trusted path between to > keys. This site is pretty cool: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~jc/wotsap/ For example: http://webware.lysator.liu.se/jc/wotsap/?top=0xE580B363&bottom=0x6B21489A ...and... http://webware.lysator.liu.se/jc/wotsap/?top=0x135EA668&bottom=0x6B21489A Seems like there's at least a small bug -- the email address is shows for me is one of my revoked uids. -- Josh Huber

May 21, 2004

Re: [Wlug] GPG - web of trust

by Frank Sweetser

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 09:17:04AM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > > HI all, > > I recently received an email from Jeff Moyer on the WLUG list. Kmail noted > that the digital signature was valid but untrusted (I thought that feature > was broken - why is it suddenly working??). I had downloaded Jeff's key from > the key server. > > What establishes this key as trusted? Certainly, if I had signed Jeff's key > myself, I would trust it, but in this case, I did not. I also don't know > anybody who has signed Jeff's key. When you sign someone else's public key, your are explicitly stating that you trust that the identity string contained in that pubkey accuratelly identifies the person who created the signature and knows the secret passphrase to the private key. > Do I need to place a personal value on keys which I've downloaded? > Hypothetically, what if I downloaded it from some rogue server masquerading > as the real thing? There's no need to throw a rogue server into the picture. One thing to note about the PGP keyservers - they do absolutelly no authentication at all. Anyone can store any key identifying themselves as anyone at all, and the keyservers will take it. All I have to do is generate a new key pair identifying myself as Jeff Moyer, upload it, and if you search for Jeff on the keyservers, both his and mine will appear. This is the purpose for having key signing parties. By having people physically show up with both their key fingerprints and verifiable evidenice of who they are, you can establish within reasonable doubt that *this* key belongs to this person, regardless of what the identifying strings in the public key advertise. > What I suspect is that if I signed Joe Blow's key, and Joe had signed Jeff > Moyer's key, and I had placed a value on Joe's ability to properly verify > keys, that there would be some implication about the goodness of Jeff's key. > Correct? Correct - this is the "web of trust" in operation. Note that in order for this to work, everyone must have uploaded their signed public keys to the keyservers, and then must periodically refresh their local public keyring from the keyservers to get an up to date list of who has signed who'se keys. gpg only generates its internal web of trust (stored in the trustdb) based off of the local keyring. > In my situation, I suspect that there are too many degrees of separation > between keys which I trust and Jeff's key and its signers. How does this gap > get closed? There are probably missing links, if such a path exists at all. Let's say that you signed Bob's key, Bob signed Charlie's key, and Charlie signed Jeff's key. Since you signed Bob's key, you presumablly have declared it trusted. If you haven't downloaded Charlie's key, though, then gpg can't find a path to Jeff, so it will declare his key as untrusted. To try and close this, you must first find out what other keys have signed the signature you're trying to get to. I'll use Theo's key as an example here (with lots of snipping, since he's got a big keyring). tty/10 1002 erwin 09:34:56 $ gpg --list-sigs felicity pub 1024D/E580B363 1997-11-09 Theo Van Dinter <felicity(a)kluge.net> sig F74F343D 2003-11-01 [User id not found] sig C52DCE75 2003-11-01 [User id not found] sig 3 R CCE3BD36 2003-08-23 [User id not found] sig 3 E2E88CEC 2004-04-23 Frank Sweetser <fs(a)wpi.edu> sig 898AA63C 2004-04-23 Doug Mildram (Born under 4.2BSD) <doug.mildram(a)mindspeed.com> These are a few of the keys in Theo's public keyring, which I have a copy of from the public keyservers. I can see my own in there, and Doug's, since my keyring contains keys corresponding to those fingerprints. The ones marked as "User id not found" are ones that I don't have. I can search the keyserver either by going to a web interface such as http://pgp.mit.edu/ using gpg --search-keys tty/10 1003 erwin 10:03:16 $ gpg --search-keys 0xF74F343D gpg: searching for "0xF74F343D" from HKP server pgp.mit.edu Keys 1-4 of 4 for "0xF74F343D" (1) Richard Johnson <rjohnson(a)ucar.edu> 1024 bit RSA key F74F343D, created 1995-08-18 (2) Richard Johnson <rjohnson(a)medialab.com> 1024 bit RSA key F74F343D, created 1995-08-18 (3) Thawte Freemail Member <rjohnson(a)ucar.edu> 1024 bit RSA key F74F343D, created 1995-08-18 (4) Richard Johnson <Richard.Johnson(a)medialab.com> 1024 bit RSA key F74F343D, created 1995-08-18 Enter number(s), N)ext, or Q)uit > 1 gpg: key F74F343D: public key "Richard Johnson <rjohnson(a)ucar.edu>" imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 (RSA: 1) pub 1024D/E580B363 1997-11-09 Theo Van Dinter <felicity(a)kluge.net> sig F74F343D 2003-11-01 Richard Johnson <rjohnson(a)ucar.edu> sig C52DCE75 2003-11-01 [User id not found] sig 314514EE 2003-11-01 [User id not found] [etc...] If I know who to look for in between , I can then find a path to the signature I'm looking for. Unfortuatelly, there's no good way that I know of to automatically find the shortest trusted path between to keys. -- Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu WPI Network Engineer GPG fingerprint = 6174 1257 129E 0D21 D8D4 E8A3 8E39 29E3 E2E8 8CEC

May 21, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Comcast dolts (mail server problem?)

by Keller, Tim

Your theory is absolutely correct. We implement our SMTP systems in the same way. We've got 3 boxes behind a DNS round robin. Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Andy Stewart [mailto:andystewart@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 8:53 AM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: [Wlug] Comcast dolts (mail server problem?) HI all, In Kmail, when I configure the email sending parameters, I fill in "smtp.comcast.net" as instructed. In the security section, there's a selection for "check what the server supports". I do this and it returns "encryption TLS, authentication method CRAM-MD5". Well, it does this *most* of the time. Once in a while, it returns "encryption SSL". Keeping the above in mind, I periodically get errors when sending email. The error is "authentication failure". However, if I immediately resend, it goes through just fine (sometimes after repeated resends). Note also that smtp.comcast.net maps to 4 different IP addresses. My theory is that the Comcast servers are not all using the same authentication method, and when I catch one that's not setup the same as my email program, I don't authenticate and thus cannot send email. Does this theory seem reasonable? I tried to explain my theory to Comcast tech support who asked me to reboot Windows, and then complained about my unsupported email client. When I asked to speak to the system administrator for the email server, they refused. Comcast can't get into their heads that there might be an intelligent user or two using their service, and that all problems aren't the fault of the user. Sigh...any thoughts ? Thanks, Andy -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA USA http://www.wlug.org _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

May 21, 2004

Re:Comcast dolts (mail server problem?)

by Jeff Kinz

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 08:52:49AM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > In Kmail, when I configure the email sending parameters, I fill in > "smtp.comcast.net" as instructed. In the security section, there's a > selection for "check what the server supports". I do this and it returns > "encryption TLS, authentication method CRAM-MD5". Well, it does this *most* > of the time. Once in a while, it returns "encryption SSL". > > Keeping the above in mind, I periodically get errors when sending email. The > error is "authentication failure". However, if I immediately resend, it goes > through just fine (sometimes after repeated resends). > > Note also that smtp.comcast.net maps to 4 different IP addresses. > > My theory is that the Comcast servers are not all using the same > authentication method, and when I catch one that's not setup the same as my > email program, I don't authenticate and thus cannot send email. Does this > theory seem reasonable? > > I tried to explain my theory to Comcast tech support who asked me to reboot > Windows, and then complained about my unsupported email client. When I asked > to speak to the system administrator for the email server, they refused. > Comcast can't get into their heads that there might be an intelligent user or > two using their service, and that all problems aren't the fault of the user. > Sigh...any thoughts ? Thoughts beyond what **ses most mass-market broadband providers are ? :) I would set up a script to send an email to yourself routed thru an outside node (I can give you a user a kinz.org that will just forward stuff back to you). have it periodically emit an email that you can easily filter out and send to dev null. Set up tcpdump to capture the smtp and auth data. See which IP's are using which auth method, (or verify that there is something else going on... ). I use comcast w/sendmail and mutt. All my email is sent out thru Comcast's smtp service. iMy smtp auth flags are set to "A", whetever that means. (Can't find it in the bat book! ) -- Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. "jkinz(a)kinz.org" is copyright 2004. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at www.kinz.org/policy.html (if you could get there .. )

May 21, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Comcast dolts (mail server problem?)

by Scott Venier

Andy Stewart said: > > > Sigh...any thoughts ? > Two possible suggestions. Bypass the phone support and just send email to postmaster explaining what you found. You might want to try setting the mail server to each of the IP addresses one and a time and making a chart of the methods each supports. The other thing to do is just find one of the IP's that works, and just configure your mail client to only use it. Scott

May 21, 2004

GPG - web of trust

by Andy Stewart

HI all, I recently received an email from Jeff Moyer on the WLUG list. Kmail noted that the digital signature was valid but untrusted (I thought that feature was broken - why is it suddenly working??). I had downloaded Jeff's key from the key server. What establishes this key as trusted? Certainly, if I had signed Jeff's key myself, I would trust it, but in this case, I did not. I also don't know anybody who has signed Jeff's key. Do I need to place a personal value on keys which I've downloaded? Hypothetically, what if I downloaded it from some rogue server masquerading as the real thing? What I suspect is that if I signed Joe Blow's key, and Joe had signed Jeff Moyer's key, and I had placed a value on Joe's ability to properly verify keys, that there would be some implication about the goodness of Jeff's key. Correct? In my situation, I suspect that there are too many degrees of separation between keys which I trust and Jeff's key and its signers. How does this gap get closed? Thanks, Andy -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA USA http://www.wlug.org

May 21, 2004

Comcast dolts (mail server problem?)

by Andy Stewart

HI all, In Kmail, when I configure the email sending parameters, I fill in "smtp.comcast.net" as instructed. In the security section, there's a selection for "check what the server supports". I do this and it returns "encryption TLS, authentication method CRAM-MD5". Well, it does this *most* of the time. Once in a while, it returns "encryption SSL". Keeping the above in mind, I periodically get errors when sending email. The error is "authentication failure". However, if I immediately resend, it goes through just fine (sometimes after repeated resends). Note also that smtp.comcast.net maps to 4 different IP addresses. My theory is that the Comcast servers are not all using the same authentication method, and when I catch one that's not setup the same as my email program, I don't authenticate and thus cannot send email. Does this theory seem reasonable? I tried to explain my theory to Comcast tech support who asked me to reboot Windows, and then complained about my unsupported email client. When I asked to speak to the system administrator for the email server, they refused. Comcast can't get into their heads that there might be an intelligent user or two using their service, and that all problems aren't the fault of the user. Sigh...any thoughts ? Thanks, Andy -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA USA http://www.wlug.org

May 21, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Re: Wlug Digest, Vol 7, Issue 11

by Josh Huber

Jeff Moyer <jmoyer(a)redhat.com> writes: > Heh. How quickly we forget, Mr. Huber. Remember when you called > tech support, and the guy gave you network info which was totally > horked? Like a gateway not on your subnet! Sorry I wasn't clear: when I say service I'm referring to the connectivity. As Jeff helpfully points out (thanks Jeff!), the phone support was not-so-hot. -- Josh Huber

May 20, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Re: Wlug Digest, Vol 7, Issue 11

by Jeff Moyer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ==> Regarding Re: [Wlug] Re: Wlug Digest, Vol 7, Issue 11; Josh Huber <huber(a)alum.wpi.edu> adds: huber> Thumper <postgres(a)sedo.net> writes: >> On the other hand I have many good things to say about RCN. Fast, not >> bound to specific MAC address, great uptime, IP addresses don't change >> very often... Grass is much greener on the RCN side of the fence. At >> least from my vantage point. huber> Yes, I've had excellent service from RCN. I even have a static IP huber> address, and the connection has been up for ~8 months no with NO huber> issues. Assuming you pay for a static ip, they block Heh. How quickly we forget, Mr. Huber. Remember when you called tech support, and the guy gave you network info which was totally horked? Like a gateway not on your subnet! - -phro -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFArLpBH/inyh944bQRAiloAKC3+wAEZjjXDVusFegw/q+tGTT90gCgsXFI l/LppDitb70ImuyBGZp/J88= =HCDC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

May 20, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Re: Wlug Digest, Vol 7, Issue 11

by Josh Huber

Thumper <postgres(a)sedo.net> writes: > On the other hand I have many good things to say about RCN. Fast, > not bound to specific MAC address, great uptime, IP addresses don't > change very often... Grass is much greener on the RCN side of the > fence. At least from my vantage point. Yes, I've had excellent service from RCN. I even have a static IP address, and the connection has been up for ~8 months no with NO issues. Assuming you pay for a static ip, they block nothing. (otherwise they block outbound SMTP to anywhere but their SMTP server, and various inbound ports). Unfortunately, I think RCN isn't available in the Worcester area, is it? hmmmm....doesn't look too good :P -----------8<-----------8<-----------8<-----------8<-----------8<---- Congratulations! RCN provides service to your area! Your Address: 9 GOULDING ST worcester, MA 01609 The following services are available to the address shown above: Dialup Internet -- Josh Huber

May 20, 2004

Re: Wlug Digest, Vol 7, Issue 11

by Thumper

Since I have no good things to say about Comcast/ATT, I refuse to say anything about that rotten, thieving company that will never get any more of my business. On the other hand I have many good things to say about RCN. Fast, not bound to specific MAC address, great uptime, IP addresses don't change very often... Grass is much greener on the RCN side of the fence. At least from my vantage point. > > I have Comcast (AT&T Broadband) in southern NH and have nothing but > > good things to say about them. In the 3 years I had them, I think I > > can count the number of outages on 1 hand and they were always very > > brief. > > > > > > > > > I've heard nothing but overwhelming complaints about Comcast. I have had > > > email contact with dozens of municipalities who use Comcast for Internet > > > service. Things like "weeks without service" is a common theme. I can't > > > remember hearing anything good about them. > > > > > > - Rob > > >

May 20, 2004

Vonage

by Dwight A. Ernest

We use Vonage at home. It works well for us. We have two lines, one for FAX and one for voice (the single Cisco box can support two lines). Our connectivity is through Charter Communications; we're in Boylston; the service we have is 768 down, 256 up. Keller, Tim wrote: > Does anybody on the WLUG list use Vonage? I constantly see banner ads for > them, but I don't know anybody who uses them. -- Dwight A. Ernest, dwight at significant dot com GPG key A6999567 Cell: +1-508-523-1416 FAX: +1-978-405-2504 YIM: dwight_ernest RHCE #803004293310030 http://significant.com/~dwight/ KA2CNN Papa, partner, pilot, net geek, sysadmin, consultant, cohouser.

May 19, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Comcast experiences Plug for Speakeasy.net

by Keller, Tim

Does anybody on the WLUG list use Vonage? I constantly see banner ads for them, but I don't know anybody who uses them. Later, Tim. "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov -----Original Message----- From: Josh Huber [mailto:huber@alum.wpi.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 9:41 AM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Comcast experiences Plug for Speakeasy.net Mike Frysinger <vapier(a)gentoo.org> writes: > the trouble is that if everyone has a cellphone and thus the local > line never gets used, you have to add $30 to the price of dsl since > that's how much a local line will run you -mike Check for the no long distance, local metered plans. I had this (before I canceled my phone line) and it cost $10 from verizon. After the excessive taxes and fees, it came out to around $16, if I recall. All outgoing calls cost money, so you really only want to do this if you don't use the phone for voice... -- Josh Huber _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

May 19, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Charter experiences? -was:Comcast experiences ?

by Baris Hasdemir

On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 09:09, Martin, Eric wrote: > Um...what package did you have with Verizon / Charter? Last I checked, > verizon was 49.99, and Charter only adds on $35 to your cable bill if you > already have any form of cable (or it costs an extra 10 or 11 if you > don't)...Granted those are base rates, but...'sides, buy the bridge, you can > get one from Best Buy for $60 or less if you get rebates.... > > Eric > Verizon 1.5Mbits/s is $35 for a year now. Charter was 2Mbits/s for $43.28 including tax and $2 or $3/month rent for the cable modem. I guess they are supplying 3Mbits/s for the same price now. I did not have any form of tv subscription, so charter package was only high speed cable service.

May 19, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Comcast experiences Plug for Speakeasy.net

by Josh Huber

Mike Frysinger <vapier(a)gentoo.org> writes: > the trouble is that if everyone has a cellphone and thus the local > line never gets used, you have to add $30 to the price of dsl since > that's how much a local line will run you -mike Check for the no long distance, local metered plans. I had this (before I canceled my phone line) and it cost $10 from verizon. After the excessive taxes and fees, it came out to around $16, if I recall. All outgoing calls cost money, so you really only want to do this if you don't use the phone for voice... -- Josh Huber

May 19, 2004