|
Grex > Helpers > #138: Grex System Problems - Winter 2004/2005 |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 870 responses total. |
scholar
|
|
response 667 of 870:
| 
Feb 8 04:12 UTC 2005 |
http://www.richardscrusade.org/
|
glenda
|
|
response 668 of 870:
|
Feb 8 04:34 UTC 2005 |
Re #664: Richard, don't feed the troll!
|
keesan
|
|
response 669 of 870:
|
Feb 8 05:00 UTC 2005 |
I tried just now and could not connect via dialing. I might have been using
a different computer earlier when I connected. I have mostly USR Sportsters
flashed from x2 to v90. This one is a 28.8K.
|
scott
|
|
response 670 of 870:
|
Feb 8 08:30 UTC 2005 |
When I get back I could try to dig up my old Newton-based modem configuration.
|
jep
|
|
response 671 of 870:
|
Feb 8 13:56 UTC 2005 |
re resp:664: Grex should pride itself on the quality of it's posts? Do
you read most of the responses? The URL postings are below average in
creativity and information content but they are hardly the bottom of
the barrel here. Just filter the author, as I do. Then you don't have
to worry about them any more.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 672 of 870:
|
Feb 8 18:17 UTC 2005 |
you filter?
|
naftee
|
|
response 673 of 870:
|
Feb 8 18:25 UTC 2005 |
He's a backtalk user.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 674 of 870:
|
Feb 8 18:35 UTC 2005 |
filters are for pussies.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 675 of 870:
|
Feb 8 18:51 UTC 2005 |
picospan still segvs when I scribble a response.
|
scholar
|
|
response 676 of 870:
|
Feb 8 19:10 UTC 2005 |
Re. 674: AHAH< AND FOR CUNTS
|
happyboy
|
|
response 677 of 870:
|
Feb 8 19:55 UTC 2005 |
HAHAHA>LOL
|
cross
|
|
response 678 of 870:
|
Feb 8 20:20 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 679 of 870:
|
Feb 8 20:29 UTC 2005 |
I can't run Pine because (I think) Grex is unable to find my terminal in the
utmp file. What does that mean?
|
gull
|
|
response 680 of 870:
|
Feb 8 20:43 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:664: Honestly, I think staff has better things to do than
censoring people's posts.
|
remmers
|
|
response 681 of 870:
|
Feb 8 20:45 UTC 2005 |
Caveat re resp:678 - Fronttalk is beta, so expect some rough edges if
you use it. However, Jan's been putting a lot of work into it recently
and it's getting to be in good shape. There's an item in the Garage
conference to discuss Fronttalk bugs and features (item:garage,5).
|
keesan
|
|
response 682 of 870:
|
Feb 8 23:26 UTC 2005 |
I can't dial or telnet to grex now.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 683 of 870:
|
Feb 8 23:51 UTC 2005 |
So far, only the first modem has been used.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 684 of 870:
|
Feb 9 00:44 UTC 2005 |
Telnet and ssh both work for me. I want to get some cat3 telephone cable. I
have cat5, but I don't think that will work for telephone.
Of course, I could put two jacks on each end of the cat5, instead of one, and
use one cable for both modems. :)
|
naftee
|
|
response 685 of 870:
|
Feb 9 00:52 UTC 2005 |
:)
|
gull
|
|
response 686 of 870:
|
Feb 9 00:58 UTC 2005 |
CAT5 will work fine. It's just more expensive. CAT3 and CAT5 both have
four twisted pairs (eight conductors), incidentally -- CAT5 just allows
for more bandwidth.
In either case it's just a matter of crimping the right connectors on
the ends (or attaching the right jacks, as the case may be). For best
noise rejection, don't "split pairs" -- use two wires from the cable
that are twisted around each other for the phone line. Only the two
center conductors of a phone connector actually do anything, on a
single-line phone, and in fact you'll find a lot of commercial phone
cords only have two wires.
So, for a single-line phone, the connector would look like this:
--AA-- (Where - is empty, and A are wires from one pair of the cable.)
For a two-line phone, it would look like this:
-BAAB- (Where A is from one pair, and B is from another.)
Incidentally, the two wires that are used on a phone connector
correspond with the two unused positions on a 10baseT ethernet
connector. I suspect this is to help protect ethernet equipment from
damage when some clueless person accidentally plugs a phone line into it.
|
gull
|
|
response 687 of 870:
|
Feb 9 00:59 UTC 2005 |
Hmm. I just found this website that probably explains it in a less
confusing way than I just did:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/phone_wiring.html
|
keesan
|
|
response 688 of 870:
|
Feb 9 02:21 UTC 2005 |
Jim and Kiwanis probably have this cable.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 689 of 870:
|
Feb 9 02:31 UTC 2005 |
Kiwanis did not.
|
tsty
|
|
response 690 of 870:
|
Feb 9 02:49 UTC 2005 |
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, ethernet wiring, iirc, is *not* wired correctly
for telephone use. oh, wait, that is incorrect since polarity
no longer matters to the modern phone newtwork.
this applies to 4-conductor cable.
gull's #686 is correct for phones, single-pair and two-pair.
|
gull
|
|
response 691 of 870:
|
Feb 9 03:55 UTC 2005 |
It's true that ethernet wiring isn't quite the same as phone wiring, but
the cable itself is fine -- the difference is in how the ends are
attached. You're going to have to change the ends anyway, unless your
phone stuff has RJ-45 jacks on it. (Which isn't unheard of, mind you,
but it's rare.)
There are still some things out there that care about polarity, though
you're unlikely to run into them. I found out the hard way this week
that polarity matters a lot to DID lines. Ended up making a custom
cable for a new fax modem because the jack at work was wired backwards,
to compensate for some old equipment that was also wired backwards. DID
lines are their own special nastiness, though; take everything about how
phone signalling normally works and stand it on its head, and you have a
good idea how a DID line is set up.
|