OS/2 and ADSL from Verizon Online
John Missing
After a horrible experience with the Injoy Firewall and PPPoE driver and
their lack of support for their products, which, in the end, could not
be configured because installing the driver interfered with MPTS
configuration, and then discovering that ISDNPM doesn't support DHCP and
finally finding that SafeFire seems to misread the configuration under
MPTS, I am wondering whether there is any way to connect to Verizon
Online DSL under OS/2.
Perhaps the question should be whether there is a software method of
connecting or must I buy a router and configure my machine for a LAN
connection. My machine dual boots OS/2 or Windows 98.
Any information would be appreciated.
Blessings,
Archbishop John
eric w
buy a cable/dsl router (they are real cheap).
they all have PPPoE code builtin which is what you need to get going (plus you
will get some protection from the jungle).
...eric
Jerry
<bishopjoh...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the question should be whether there is a software method of
> connecting or must I buy a router and configure my machine for a LAN
> connection.
I use Verizon DSL, and I have no real idea how I would go about
connecting my OS/2 and eCS installations to the verizon modem without
a network card. Once you have a network card, an inexpensive router
just makes everything much easier.
HTH,
Jerry
--
John Missing
router. Windows software allows me to connect the NIC to the DSL modem
directly. There doesn't appear to be anything comparable for OS/2. The
software that I've tried just doesn't work satisfactorily.
Blessings,
Archbishop John
Stan Goodman
opined:
I think we can give the man the benefit of the doubt, and assume that
he has a network card. I see nothing in his query to indicate that he
doesn't. What he is asking is whether he needs also a router -- which
would indeed make his problem much simpler. It is what I did when I
connected to ADSL here (PPtP, rather than PPPoE, which was even more
dicey).
--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel
Please replace "SPAM-FOILER" with "sgoodman".
200 years of European fecklessness in the face of Arab terror: Tripoli
Pirates (1814); OPEC Oil (1973); Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat
(1990 et seq.) -- but actually financing it, and marching in support
of tyranny, are 21st-century craven European wrinkles.
William L. Hartzell
Bjarne Jensen
We analyzed John's PPPoE trace and replied to --every single-- question John
had, right up until the point where John started his e-mail with the
sentense:
"I wasted money on your software!!!"
The above sentence came out of the blue, without any previous questions
about the specific problems. I welcome John to show the messages we had
written before and maybe point out our lack of support or similar
disrespectful behavior from F/X ??
Anyway, after this comment from John, which we found very disrespectful and
unproductive, we told John that we did not want to further support him.
"John Missing" <bishopjoh...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gpB%a.4247$_P1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
John Missing
Unfortunately, Mr. Bjarne Jensen again throws lies and disrespect at me.
I shall post the complete text of our correspondence.
Bjarne Jensen wrote:
> I regret to say that John Missing is lying.
>
> We analyzed John's PPPoE trace and replied to --every single-- question John
> had, right up until the point where John started his e-mail with the
> sentense:
>
> "I wasted money on your software!!!"
>
> The above sentence came out of the blue, without any previous questions
> about the specific problems. I welcome John to show the messages we had
> written before and maybe point out our lack of support or similar
> disrespectful behavior from F/X ??
>
> Anyway, after this comment from John, which we found very disrespectful
This is not disrespectful or not nearly so much as his response of
calling me a "bastard."
You will see how poor their support was. And how little respect they
have for the consumers on whom they depend for their livelihood.
Blessings,
Archbishop John
John Missing
> First message:
> Subject: Error
> From: Bishop John Missing
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:51:00 -0400
> To: sup...@fx.dk
>
> Please help!
> I just downloaded and registered Injoy Firewall and later downloaded PPPoE. With each of them
> I carefully followed the directions for installation, but when I tried starting I got an error which I
> don't understand:
>
> InJoy Firewall, Copyright (C) F/X Communications
> GATEWAY.EXE version 1.40 (1)
> 20:48.34 Fatal: Interface address/netmask 0.0.0.0 NOT allowed.
> 20:48.34 Fatal: Use e.g. 1.1.1.1 or 10.2.2.1 with netmask 255.255.255.0
> Killed by signal! (C0010002)
>
>
> InJoy PPPoE, Copyright (C) F/X Communications
> PPPOET.EXE version 1.0 (1)
> 23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :01 :00 00 00 00 00 00
> 23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :02 :00 00 00 00 00 00
> 23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :03 :00 00 00 00 00 00
> 23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :04 :00 00 00 00 00 00
> 23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :05 :00 00 00 00 00 00
> 23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :06 :00 00 00 00 00 00
> 23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :07 :00 00 00 00 00 00
> 23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :08 :00 00 00 00 00 00
> 23:08.02 Fatal: Interface address/netmask 0.0.0.0 NOT allowed.
> 23:08.02 Fatal: Use e.g. 1.1.1.1 or 10.2.2.1 with netmask 255.255.255.0
>
> --
> Blessings,
> Archbishop John Missing
> (***********@********** OR bisho...@yahoo.com)
> (http://fellowship-of-mercy.faithweb.com)
> Glory to Jesus Christ!
> Glory to Him Forever!
>
> First reply:
>
> Subject: Re: Error
> From: "F/X Communications" <b...@fx.dk>
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:19:19 +0200
> To:"Bishop John Missing"
>
> The lan interface you install our driver to must be
> assigned an ip address. For example 1.1.1.1. In other
> words, you must go into the os2 tcpip configuration and make
> active the lan card/interface and assign it a dummy
> ip address. Hope this helps.
>
>
>>>Please help!
>>>I just downloaded and registered Injoy Firewall and later downloaded
>>>PPPoE. With each of them I carefully followed the directions for
>>>installation, but when I tried starting I got an error which I don't
>>>understand:
>
>
>>>InJoy Firewall, Copyright (C) F/X Communications
>>>GATEWAY.EXE version 1.40 (1)
>>>20:48.34 Fatal: Interface address/netmask 0.0.0.0 NOT allowed.
>>>20:48.34 Fatal: Use e.g. 1.1.1.1 or 10.2.2.1 with netmask 255.255.255.0
>>>Killed by signal! (C0010002)
>
>
>
>>>InJoy PPPoE, Copyright (C) F/X Communications
>>>PPPOET.EXE version 1.0 (1)
>>>23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :01 :00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :02 :00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :03 :00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :04 :00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :05 :00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :06 :00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :07 :00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>23:08.02 Debug: getting interface :08 :00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>23:08.02 Fatal: Interface address/netmask 0.0.0.0 NOT allowed.
>>>23:08.02 Fatal: Use e.g. 1.1.1.1 or 10.2.2.1 with netmask 255.255.255.0
>
>
>>>--
>>>Blessings,
>>>Archbishop John Missing
>>>(********@******* OR bisho...@yahoo.com)
>>>(http://fellowship-of-mercy.faithweb.com)
>>>Glory to Jesus Christ!
>>> Glory to Him Forever!
> -- Bjarne Jensen
> President, F/X Communications.
> http://www.fx.dk - Email: b...@fx.dk
>
>
> Second message:
> Subject:Re: Error (still more problems)
> From:Bishop John Missing <************@************>
> Date:Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:03:18 -0400
> To:F/X Communications <b...@fx.dk>
>
> I found that the dummy address had to be used everywhere, including in the PPPoE configuration
> file and that no other netmask than 255.255.255.0. I wonder whether that may cause me a
> problem because Verizon Online seems to have a netmask of 255.255.248.0!
> Now that I have the program running and not quitting before doing anything, I still don't manage
> to make a connection. I have attached the PPPoE.trc file.
>
> F/X Communications wrote:
>
>> The lan interface you install our driver to must be
>> assigned an ip address. For example 1.1.1.1. In other
>> words, you must go into the os2 tcpip configuration and make
>> active the lan card/interface and assign it a dummy
>> ip address. Hope this helps.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Blessings,
> Archbishop John Missing
> (************@************.net OR bisho...@yahoo.com)
> (http://fellowship-of-mercy.faithweb.com)
> Glory to Jesus Christ!
> Glory to Him Forever!
>
> *** TRACE FILE FOR PPPOE PLUGIN - version 1.10
>
> -----------------trace file snipped to save bandwidth---------------------------------
>
>
> Second reply:
>
> Subject: Re: Error (still more problems)
> From: "F/X Communications" <b...@fx.dk>
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:04:10 +0200
> To: "Bishop John Missing" <************@************>
>
> The dummy address don't need to be used averywhere, but for now
> it's okay that you have filled it into the pppoe configuration.
>
> The PPPoE negotiation gets to the point where we send out a
> "discovery" packet, to find any PPPoE capable servers. Unfortunately
> we get no response, so we just repeat the packet over and over.
>
> This problem can only be a few things.. Either:
>
> 1: PPPoE is not installed to right network adapter
> 2: the InJoy Firewall is not hooked up correctly - cabling for
> instance.
> 3: Verizon doesn't support standard PPPoE?
> 4: You are using OS/2 3.x, instead of 4.x
>
> That's it..
>
>
>>>I found that the dummy address had to be used everywhere, including in
>>>
> ---------------------------my message snipped to shorten------------------------------------------------
>>> Glory to Him Forever!
>
> -- Bjarne Jensen
> President, F/X Communications.
> http://www.fx.dk - Email: b...@fx.dk
>
>
>
> [Note: My work was then directed at checking everything. I use OS/2 Warp 4 with the latest
> fixpack. Cabling was correct as determined by being able to operate under Windows 98 (I dual
> boot OS/2 and Windows 98.). PPPoE was installed to the right network adapter as indicated by
> MPTS, but it had been given a number one less than the interface and installation of Injoy's
> PPPoE prevented me from correcting it.
> I repeatedly tried various strategies to no avail, growing more frustrated with each attempt!]
>
> My next message:
>
> Subject: Re: Error (still more problems)
> From: Bishop John Missing <************@************>
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:40:05 -0400
> To: F/X Communications <b...@fx.dk>
>
> I wasted my money on your software!!! It looks like I may have to get a router in order to allow
> my DSL connection to be accessible to OS/2!
> Because it is incompatible with MPTS configuration software, I cannot configure it for the right
> interface.
> When I install your drive according to your directions, it associates it with the correct interface
> card but with a number which is one less than that interface. Since your software interferes with
> the normal operation of the MPTS configuration software, I cannot correct
> this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> F/X Communications wrote:
>
>> The dummy address don't need to be used averywhere, but for now
>> it's okay that you have filled it into the pppoe configuration.
>>
>> The PPPoE negotiation gets to the point where we send out a
>> "discovery" packet, to find any PPPoE capable servers. Unfortunately
>> we get no response, so we just repeat the packet over and over.
>>
>> This problem can only be a few things.. Either:
>>
>> 1: PPPoE is not installed to right network adapter
>>
> Because your software will not allow it to be!!!
>
>> 2: the InJoy Firewall is not hooked up correctly - cabling for
>> instance.
>> 3: Verizon doesn't support standard PPPoE? 4: You are using OS/2 3.x, instead of 4.x
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Blessings,
> Archbishop John Missing
> (************@************.net OR bisho...@yahoo.com)
> (http://fellowship-of-mercy.faithweb.com)
> Glory to Jesus Christ!
> Glory to Him Forever!
>
> His next reply:
> [Please notice his first words!]
>
> Subject: Re: Error (still more problems)
> From: "F/X Communications" <b...@fx.dk>
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:55:54 +0200
> To: "Bishop John Missing" <************@************>
> CC: "b...@fx.dk" <b...@fx.dk>
>
> You are a sad bastard of an archbishop to write a thing like that
> and to show such little respect for the hard work of your fellow
> man. It discusts me.
>
> I had initially written you a nice reply to this, but honestly,
> people like you make me sick (literally) and I won't deal further
> with you. Good-bye.
>
>>>I wasted my money on your software!!! It looks like I may have to get a
>>>router in order to allow my DSL connection to be accessible to OS/2!
>>>Because it is incompatible with MPTS configuration software, I cannot
>>>configure it for the right interface.
>>>When I install your drive according to your directions, it associates it
>>>with the correct interface card but with a number which is one less than
>>>that interface. Since your software interferes with the normal
>>>operation of the MPTS configuration software, I cannot correct
>>>this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> -- Bjarne Jensen
> President, F/X Communications.
> http://www.fx.dk - Email: b...@fx.dk
>
> My response to his profanity:
>
> Subject: Re: Error (still more problems)
> From: Bishop John Missing <************@************>
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:09:28 -0400
> To: F/X Communications <b...@fx.dk>
>
> Beloved in Christ, Bjarne Jensen,
> By the very first words out of your mouth you establish the lack of credence I should give your
> comments. You stand in judgment of me, with cursing coming out of your mouth, because I
> object to buying a product which does not operate. I acknowledge your hard work, but I also am
> honest enough to point out the inadequacy of the result.
> Obviously, because you already have my money you don't care to fulfill your responsibility of
> supporting your product. Be assured that everyone whom I know will hear of your conduct and
> my experience with your software. I am even considering posting our full correspondence on
> OS/2 Usenet newsgroups on the Internet in order to warn other consumers before they have the
> same experience.
>
> F/X Communications wrote:
>
>>You are a sad bastard of an archbishop to write a thing like that
>>and to show such little respect for the hard work of your fellow
>>man. It discusts me.
>>
>>I had initially written you a nice reply to this, but honestly,
>>people like you make me sick (literally) and I won't deal further
>>with you. Good-bye.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I wasted my money on your software!!! It looks like I may have to get a
>>>router in order to allow my DSL connection to be accessible to OS/2!
>>>Because it is incompatible with MPTS configuration software, I cannot
>>>configure it for the right interface.
>>>When I install your drive according to your directions, it associates it
>>>with the correct interface card but with a number which is one less than
>>>that interface. Since your software interferes with the normal
>>>operation of the MPTS configuration software, I cannot correct
>>>this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
> --
> Blessings,
> Archbishop John Missing
> (************@************.net OR bisho...@yahoo.com)
> (http://fellowship-of-mercy.faithweb.com)
> Glory to Jesus Christ!
> Glory to Him Forever!
>
> His next reply:
> [Notice how little he thinks of those on whom he depends for his income!]
>
> Subject: Re: Error (still more problems)
> From: "F/X Communications" <b...@fx.dk>
> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:57:30 +0200
> To: "Bishop John Missing" <************@************>
>
> If you post this publically, then let me just include this.
> Anyone that starts out by saying "I wasted my money on your software!!!",
> will have the exact same problems with us. Professional and serious
> people can just ask us politely and they we reply in the same fashion.
>
>
> --Original Message Text---
> From: Bishop John Missing
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:09:28 -0400
>
> Beloved in Christ, Bjarne Jensen,
> By the very first words out of your mouth you establish the lack of credence I should give your
> comments. You stand in judgment of me, with cursing coming out of your mouth, because I object
> to buying a product which does not operate. I acknowledge your hard work, but I also am honest
> enough to point out the inadequacy of the result.
>
> -------------------------snipped to save space--------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -- Bjarne Jensen
> President, F/X Communications.
> http://www.fx.dk - Email: b...@fx.dk
>
>
> My final reply:
>
> Subject: Re: Error (still more problems)
> From: Bishop John Missing <************@************>
> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:26:42 -0400
> To: F/X Communications <b...@fx.dk>
>
> Beloved in Christ, Bjarne,
> My statement did not justify your cursing me!!!
> My prayers shall be that you receive justice for your unprofessional and heartless treatment of
> frustrated customers.
> Perhaps your ego is so large that you are incapable of admitting that your product has faults which
> would prove frustrating when they repeated foil attempts to configure the software and you fail to
> offer any effective support.
> I am both a professional and serious person, but I object to spending God's money on products
> that are defective and useless!
>
> F/X Communications wrote:
>
>> If you post this publically, then let me just include this.
>> Anyone that starts out by saying "I wasted my money on your software!!!",
>> will have the exact same problems with us. Professional and serious
>> people can just ask us politely and they we reply in the same fashion.
>>
>>
> --------------------------------------snipped to save space------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> -- Bjarne Jensen
>> President, F/X Communications.
>> http://www.fx.dk - Email: b...@fx.dk
>
> --
> Blessings,
> Archbishop John Missing
> (************@************.net OR bisho...@yahoo.com)
> (http://fellowship-of-mercy.faithweb.com)
> Glory to Jesus Christ!
> Glory to Him Forever!
>
>
Blessings,
Archbishop John
Bjarne Jensen
You said here that we didn't support you and yet in your second posting
today, there are multiple support e-mails from us. How can both things be
true? Let me paste one of our replies to just prove this:
---------------------------------------------------------------
> The lan interface you install our driver to must be
> assigned an ip address. For example 1.1.1.1. In other
> words, you must go into the os2 tcpip configuration and make
> active the lan card/interface and assign it a dummy
> ip address. Hope this helps.
---------------------------------------------------------------
So why would an archbishop directly lie about this and deliberately
cause damage to a company?
And, why would you not ask questions instead of outbursting that
"I wasted money on your software!!!"
Do you think the above sentense is worthy for an archbishop and
do you think it's a proper way to ask for support?
Your second posting today proves all this, so it's evident you are
lying - but where am I lying? Please show everyone where exactly
I'm lying!!! Expose it please, instead of making cheap claims!
"John Missing" <bishopjoh...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1Y90b.9071$Bo6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
John Missing
refused to address the defect in your software, refused to give any
effective support and yet you have no qualms about taking my money for
your defective product.
Bjarne Jensen wrote:
> --Please-- point out where I lie in my posting!?
YOU call me a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
James Moe
> [...] and yet you have no qualms about taking my money for
> your defective product.
>
Have you asked for your money back?
--
jimoe at sohnen-moe dot com
Bjarne Jensen
> YOU call me a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me repeat what you did, for me to conclude that you are a liar:
1: First you publically said here that we didn't give support. It was a lie!
2: Then you poste our actual support replies, which proves the lie.
This means that your claim about our products lacking support
is simply FALSE. We did give you support!
I'll ask again. Do you not agree that we supported you up to
the point where you wrote:
"I wasted money on your software!!!"
You can argue our suppport didn't help you solve the problems,
but then you could just have said that politely and we would have
done whatever it takes. You had no reason to belittle us or show
this kind of disrespect.
I believe this closes the case on our part.
Good-bye John Missing.
Bjarne Jensen
John did not ask for a refund, but we would be happy to
refund John if he stops lying about us and start telling the
truth - namely that:
1: We actually did support John - just as his e-mail record shows.
2: Support was halted ONLY when John said "I wasted money on your
software!!!".
3: It was a lie when John stated our products lacked support, as he had
received
support and he been told exactly why we halted support (in e-mail).
This is exactly what John e-mail record shows - and if John doesn't feel the
above
is true, then I would again simply ask him to point out exactly where I'm
wrong.
If John maintains that we didn't support him and try to cause damage to our
company in this rediculous way, then he is lying and then his only rights
with
our company (or BMT) are through the court system.
"James Moe" <jimoe...@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:bhug5k$8kc$1...@216.39.187.189...
leto...@nospam.net
>buy a cable/dsl router (they are real cheap).
>they all have PPPoE code builtin which is what you need to get going
>(plus you will get some protection from the jungle).
Is there a cable/dsl router that anyone "knows" will work with Verizon
DSL?
--
Mark Klebanoff
Westel modem Verizon supplied. I got rid of the setup because Comcast
cable internet proved to be faster, more reliable and cheaper than
Verizon DSL.
Karlheinz Schmidthaus
> Beloved in Christ,
> After a horrible experience with the Injoy Firewall and PPPoE driver and
> their lack of support for their products, which, in the end, could not
> be configured because installing the driver interfered with MPTS
> configuration, and then discovering that ISDNPM doesn't support DHCP and
> finally finding that SafeFire seems to misread the configuration under
> MPTS, I am wondering whether there is any way to connect to Verizon
> Online DSL under OS/2.
If they use PPPoE it is not DHCP to get the ip address and nameserver
information. PPPoE means PPP over Ethernet and the Authentication and
configuration is done with PPP and ISDNPM 3.x supports that.
William L. Hartzell
Paul Russell
internet.
"John Missing" <bishopjoh...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XVM%a.6016$kK4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...