Bob Latham <bob@mightyoak.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <526ebac07erpcemu-sub@aconet.nl>,
> Frank de Bruijn <rpcemu-sub@aconet.nl> wrote:
> > In article <f693b86e52.George@tiscali..co.uk>,
> > george greenfield <george.greenfield@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Of course I would prefer to be running 5.19 and get the advantages
> > > over 4.02 that would bring, but ATM reliable, hands-off (i.e. not
> > > having to rebuild settings after each reboot) networking is a
> > > must-have for me. Sounds like 5.19 is not there yet,
> > > unfortunately.
> > That seems to depend on the host operating system. Here it works
> > just as well as 4.39, with Debian Linux as the host. Appears to me
> > like it's more a rpcemu issue than some problem with 5.19.
> I've installed RPCEmu on 3 XP machines and got all 3 working with
> networking OS 4.39. However, none of them survive a machine reboot
> with a complete re-configure of the bridge needed each time and in two
> of the cases you also have need of a full moon and months with a J in
> them.
Here it only tends to fail on even numbered Mondays in months without a
double a (in Dutch). But seriously, my point was I see no difference in
behaviour between 4.39 and 5.19 as far as networking is concerned.
I start rpcemu with a small shell script which sets up the IP tunnel and
then runs the emulator. If I need to reboot, I just quit the emulator
and restart so the tunnel is created again. The script also handles
switching in the correct ROM, CMOS and !Boot (using symlinks), depending
on whether I want 4.39 or 5.19.
I just had a brief glance at the networking guide for RPCEmu on Windows
and all I can say is that I'm glad I no longer use Windows...
Regards,
Frank
_______________________________________________
Rpcemu mailing list
Rpcemu@riscos.info
http://www.riscos.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rpcemu
No comments:
Post a Comment