World: r3wp

Gabriele - you should know what you are talking about, no? I use 
MT for 3 years, and the docs are there, there is a forum, there is 
a wiki. It allows so much complicated stuff like traffic bonding, 
easy scheduling/shaping, mangling, scripting, virtual interfaces, 
dynamic lists, etc.  that it is not even funny to compare it to bare-bones 
Linux ....

Simply put - our example - small to middle network, 600+ wi-fi users, 
50+ MT nodes, which even lamers like me and my brother can properly 
build. Would we be possible to make it using bare-bonesLinux? Absolutly 
not. Your reaction is imo typical example of why Linux fails in the 
long run. PPl want easy solution, not guru stuff.

so, what the hell has that to do with Janko's problem (a firewall 
for his server)?

can you explain me why mikrotik supports openvpn but *only* on tcp 
and not udp? that makes no sense at all.

It might have nothing to do with Janko's problem. But - I saw you 
suggesting him ShoreWall, and in that regard I did mention Mikrotik, 
because I have experience with it, and simply put - nearly all WISP 
are using it, and that means something. Some ppl do replace Cisco's 
with it. The system is no-brainer - just insert CF with MT, boot, 
and there you go. If some node dies, you can replace it in 10 minutes, 
no virtualisation or advanced technique used, just its clever design. 
Besides that - MT is still Linux underneath ...

I find using plain linux for FW/GW purposes only as extremly bad 
idea nowadays. Of course, if your server does provide you with services 
as webhosting, then Linux is preferred.

As for OpenVPN - I don't know - it is kind of "recent" addition, 
as community screamed for it. There is l2tp, pptp, ppoe and I use 
simple pptp ....

I can give anyone demo access to my central router, to look around. 
My opinion simply is, that some things don't need to be entirely 
free, in order to be considered. And something like 30-40 USD is 
cool price ...

I lost the messages i was typing to you yesterday, and you know why? 
My internet connection does not work. Guess what is my ISP? One of 
those WISP that uses mikrotik for everything. Yes, I guess that means 
something. It means that incompetent people just damage other people's 
work.

the issue is not whether it's free or not. the issue is that they 
are REMOVING features for no reason at all. Why not just add their 
own windows UI (that of course it's only for windows! they could 
not do like anyone else and make a web interface that works everywhere...) 
on top of a custom linux distribution that ALSO gives you the ability 
to do whatever you want with it IF you know how?

My router is a debian lenny box. I'm so much happier now that the 
mikrotik router in the antenna is just acting as a bridge and I don't 
even know it's there. less crap to learn and worry about...

i will never understand why you guys always want to make things more 
COMPLEX instead of making them SIMPLER. place RESTRICTIONS instead 
of enabling FREEDOM. i just don't get it. it's extremely frustrating 
for me.

go read Carl's blog again about people not having a clue about the 
business they run. go read Chuck Moore's interview that says the 
same thing (complexity means that we are doomed). I can't undertand 
why only so few people on this planet get it - how can everyone else 
think that more complex is better...

Gabriele - after reading your messages, I have to say one thing - 
I always have great respect for your and for your knowledge, especially 
in regards to REBOL. But your last remarks are so completly off, 
that I really wish you don't mean it for real.

I think I am no willing to spend my time talking some wifi related 
issues with someone, who apparently does not know, what he is talking 
about ... talking about at all.

There is so much to the wi-fi layer to know about in praxe, that 
it is not even funny. There can be plenty of reasons, why your connection 
is crappy. First of them might be RT's provider itself. That can 
be checked easy enough - if your connection is not broken only for 
Altme, then most probably it is not RT's provider, but your connection. 


From there, I would check your provider. Wi-fi is NOT cable, it never 
will be, and the technology never claimed to be 100% problem-free. 
99% of problems are NOT related to MT and its SW, believe me. The 
clear sight to your provider antenna, the weather, the antenna quality, 
pigtail quality, pigtail/calbe isolation (if water is there, the 
signal might drop SIGNIFICANTLY), general wi-fi signal pollution 
in wifi crowded area, etc. etc.

It has NOTHING to do with MT and your claims are simply false. If 
you are so brave, then go, and replace your bad MT with another Debian 
Box. I wonder, if it would make you more happy. MT is not bug-free, 
I never claimed anything like that. My MT suggestion was relatad 
exactly to the SIMPLICITY factor. You call it complex? Man - it is 
like you never used REBOL, right? MT brings simplicity to the wifi 
providing, that some other solutions are not even funny to suggest.


MT Linux abstraction is like a VID dialect upon Linux - yes, it can't 
do everything. But I can't come-up with anything it does not do for 
me for 99% of my usage cases. Yes, I noticed your OpenVPN problem, 
not supporting UDP, and yes, it sucks, but it does not mean that 
MT does not serve its purpose.

The complexity vs simplicity factor can be very easily checked. My 
brother, who would not be absolutly able to set-up linux router, 
has set-up 50 MT based router nodes. We are serving 600+ ppl, with 
problems here or there. We have 3rd iteration of our network, having 
our MT backbone rock-solid. Some P2P connections are going to be 
replaced with 10GHz ones, becaue we know where's 5GHz limit, and 
we try to use the right tools for particular needs.


But once again - I visited at least 5, maybe more courses, related 
to radios, frequencies, their correct usage, cables, antennas, with 
profi (lended from T-mobile) equipment, where we checked on the antennas 
and cables parameters, and I can tell you, that with wrong Antenna, 
pigtail, cable, with wrong installation, you can ruin your connection 
quality even down to 40%. No SW, being it MT, or Debian, or StarOS, 
can fix it.

So in the end - use what you are happy with. But don't try to put 
down publicly system, you have no deeper experience with, please, 
as apparently all WISP providers are happy with it (and not only 
them, some ppl go so far to replace Ciscos), and it might serve well 
to some other ppl, looking for simple yet sufficient solution for 
their usage case. By reading your comments, noone would probably 
ever considered Mikrotik, and that is all it is about - let's not 
create myths, where there are apparently no myths involved, and the 
system might work satisfactory to many ppl  ...

Petr, it's NOT my connection to this world that does not world. NOTHING 
works. STOP talking about things you have no idea about. This has 
been pure crap since JUNE.

Also, PLEASE, I beg you, do *read* what I write. I never said my 
problems are due to mikotik. I said my problems are due to my ISP 
not knowing what they are doing. You said that mikrotik allows "normal" 
people to set up a WISP. Right, they do, and the result is that they 
waste MY time *because* they know nothing about this job. This was 
*your* claim, and it seems to be consistent with what I am seeing.

The criticism I made to RouterOS was very targeted and very simple, 
and you of course completely ignored it. I said two things: 1) there 
is absolutely no reason they had to add the stupid shell they have 
when you connect via SSH 2) there is no reason why what they do could 
not have been implemented on top of debian, or any other distribution, 
thus allowing people who know what they are doing to provide extra 
services that are beyond what's in their default configuration. That 
is just a stupid choice. So, most people don't care or need, and 
for them MT may be a good choice. That does not make them a good 
alternative to a linux box, neither a good alternative to Janko's 
problem above, and from what you say they may be even making things 
worse.

Also, I don't see what's so magical with Cisco that if people are 
replacing it then it must mean something...

oh, my third criticism to MT, 3) there is no reason why they are 
offering a windows-only gui instead of a web-based one like everyone 
else in the world.

that said, their hardware looks nice and cheap.

Gabriele - let's make a peace in the above case. I am sorry if I 
offended you :-)

btw: MT offers web interface, but you can't set everything with it 
...

Maybe I should write Winbox in View :-)

I am not offended, I'm just sad that everytime I say something simple 
it gets interpreted as something big and complex that would hurt 
people...

Ouch, that would be bad :(

I am not offended, I'm just sad that everytime I say something simple 
it gets interpreted as something big and complex that would hurt 
people...

... :)

Yes everyone is growly and feeling unappreciated for their work ... 
the beta can't be too far off.

What would be the right place (diretory) to put rebol executable 
under linux debian?

Seems like /usr/bin

Can I create and use own icon for binary application on linux so 
it will be included when I distribute such an app as an archive?

hi, do you have a solution for the BROWSE problem on linux ?

a work around is to use CALL like this "call [firefox "http://www.rebol.com"]

but i don't like it !!!!!

up - i would like an another solution for BROWSE in linux - please 
;-)

Claude, I have a similar solution, I redefine browse in user.r
browse: funct [ url ] [ call reform [ "x-www-browser" url ]]
So you can do
browse http;//www.rebol.com

But docs, and bugs don´t work ( you can redefine them too If you 
want ), but I think you don't like this solution.

thanks for your redefine solution. perhaps carl could do something 
about this problem

ManuM; I have
browse: func [url] [call rejoin ["opera -backgroundtab " url]

and that seems to work great with bugs and docs.  Debian with A87 
... Although this version hangs the console until Opera exit if Opera 
isn't already running ...

Thank you Brian. 

Now seems tha "bugs" and "docs" are working with my own definition. 
I'm not sure when I saw they failling, may be an old version, I don't 
know.
I have the same issue wiht Opera hangs.

Hi, any idea how to get the Word Browser from Rebol -> Tools to work 
on Linux? I get an error after I click a category and then a word:
** User Error: Bad face in screen pane!
** Near: show main
This is using Rebol/View 2.7.6.4.2 on Arch Linux.

sounds like a font problem

Thanks for trying to help :) With font problem, do you mean something 
like a missing font? I got these installed: ttf-ms-fonts, ttf-dejavu, 
ttf-bitstream-vera, xorg-fonts-100dpi, xorg-fonts-75dpi, and xorg-fonts-misc. 
Any idea what kind of font would be missing for the Word Browser?

try:

	help font-
	view layout [text "test" font-fixed]
	view layout [text "test" font-sans-serif]
	view layout [text "test" font-serif]

Thanks, I tried it. No problems with any of those three, everything 
was displayed correctly and no errors in the console.

Try same, but with bold and underline (e.g.view layout [text "test" 
font-fixed bold underline])

No problems there either.