PPPOE Setup
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| techiem2 Apr 21, 2008 11:28 AM EDT |
Ok, I have this old (k6 something - not sure yet - with 64MB RAM) computer from a neighbor that they want to give to a relative/friend/something. Apparently said person will do word processing and some internet. So obviously I'm thinking Linux would be perfect (it currently has win98 on it, but the machine needs to be reinstalled one way or the other anyway). The problem is that apparently the person has DSL, which around here almost certainly means PPPOE. Any suggestions on a lightweight distro that would be easy to setup PPPOE on? I'm guessing I may need to set it up for the person anyway. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 21, 2008 1:09 PM EDT |
Back when I just started out with Ubuntu 4.10 and 5.04 it wasn't hart to set up, even though the USB modem needed some firmware loaded. I can't imagine any distro recently produced that doesn't support PPPoE/PPPoA. Zenwalk looks great, is light and google indicated it does PPPoE/PPPoA. Perhaps you could convince the neighbour in question to shell out $40 for a simple ethernet DSL modem? That'll solve all your problems and is probably more stable too. |
| jdixon Apr 21, 2008 1:11 PM EDT |
> Any suggestions on a lightweight distro that would be easy to setup PPPOE on? From memory, Damn Small Linux. But if at all possible, upgrade the memory for them. An extra 64MB will make a world of difference in what you can run. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 21, 2008 1:40 PM EDT |
I agree with jdixon, DSL would be perfect for that computer, and probably one of the few distro's that will be able to configure most, if not all the hardware on it. And another 64mb of RAM would make a world of difference when on the internet too. |
| techiem2 Apr 21, 2008 2:15 PM EDT |
Ok, I'll look into it.
Now that you mention it, the PPOE might be in the modem itself.
At least that's how it appears to be setup in Verizon.
I was over helping setup a router at the neighbor's the other day and we had to call Verizon and they had me put the modem into bridge mode so the router could be setup for pppoe...that tells me that possibly it's the modem itself doing it by default (of course, that's verizon, and I don't know if the person in question is using them or someone else reselling).
I'll have to dig through the spare ram and see if I can upgrade the critter a bit... |
| jdixon Apr 21, 2008 2:22 PM EDT |
> PPOE might be in the modem itself. That seems to vary by Verizon customer. I've seen both PPPoE and DHCP setups here in WV. The majority seem to be DHCP. If they do have PPPoE, you might want to have them invest in a cheap router ($39.93 for a Netgear wireless G router at Walmart, for example) to give them a hardware firewall and handle the PPPoE for them. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 21, 2008 2:40 PM EDT |
A router would be the easiest solution, that's for sure. Then your only issue is RAM. A new monitor, mouse, keyboard, hide the tower under the desk; and no one will be able to tell its a computer from the mesozoic era. ;-) |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 21, 2008 6:07 PM EDT |
Slitaz seems like a pretty good distro for light hardware needs, and it's a 2.6 kernel as opposed to 2.4. http://www.slitaz.org/en/ |
| techiem2 Apr 21, 2008 6:27 PM EDT |
Interesting |
| jacog Apr 22, 2008 2:30 AM EDT |
I used to just run RP-PPPOE (http://www.roaringpenguin.com/products/pppoe) to set it up. It's just a script that does it. Have tried successfully on a SuSE and Ubuntu (and Mint) setup. |
| bigg Apr 22, 2008 5:24 AM EDT |
Another light distro is VectorLinux Light: http://www.vectorlinux.com/forum2/index.php?topic=5923.0 It is claimed to run with less than 64 MB. The advantage there is that you would have access to Slackware repositories. |
| jdixon Apr 22, 2008 6:34 AM EDT |
> The advantage there is that you would have access to Slackware repositories. Such as it is. While the Slackware repositories are good, they pale in comparison to those available to Debian or Red Hat based distros. However, I just installed Vector on an 800 MHz machine for someone who was previously running Windows 98. He says it's faster than Windows ever was. Vector was the only full scale distro I could find which would install on the machine. PCLinuxOS, Mepis, and Ubuntu couldn't handle the limited memory. Vector also allowed me to resize the fat32 partition so he could keep his Windows installation for emergencies. |
| helios Apr 22, 2008 6:49 AM EDT |
At least that's how it appears to be setup in Verizon. It depends on if it's a bridged customer. Tell me their location and I will get the stats for you. h |
| bigg Apr 22, 2008 7:07 AM EDT |
> While the Slackware repositories are good, they pale in comparison to those available to Debian or Red Hat based distros. You're the Slackware expert, but from what I've used them (including third-party repos) the selection didn't seem too far behind what I was used to in Debian, and Debian has just about everything. The only thing I noticed was that a couple of specialized packages were not available. Overall I was impressed. Certainly better than the alternatives on old machines. I've got an old Cyrix-based machine (something like 250 MHz) sitting around, and Vector was lightning fast, with the Slackware repos allowing installation of almost everything I need. |
| jdixon Apr 22, 2008 7:08 AM EDT |
Ken: Did LXer eat the first part of your post? |
| jdixon Apr 22, 2008 7:17 AM EDT |
> ...the selection didn't seem too far behind what I was used to in Debian, and Debian has just about everything. The selection for Slackware is better than anything except Debain and Red Hat, but there's a fairly large gap between them, especially for commercial products and specialized applications. Even something like VMware server requires some special tricks to get working. Add in (often unmentioned) dependencies, and it can be a real pain to get some things working on Slackware. :( I personally prefer Slackware, but Debian and Red Hat based distro's do have their advantages. This is alleviated substantially by the fact that Slackware includes everything you need to compile your own packages out of the box, but that's not something most people seem to want to do. :) |
| helios Apr 22, 2008 10:47 AM EDT |
jdixon LOL...it would appear so. I used to work for a company that provided tech support for Frontier. I know a bit about their system and setups. Didn't know if what I know could have been any assistance. h |
| techiem2 Apr 22, 2008 10:54 AM EDT |
I need to call the neighbor and have them call the person to find out exactly who their provider is.
That might give us an idea.
heh. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 22, 2008 12:32 PM EDT |
Coincidentally, I'm running a 64 MB box right now. One thing that is critical is swap space. Without swap -- you can even get by with 128 MB of swap on the drive -- you will have an unpleasant experience. I've done quite a few full installs, but not I'm mostly working with live CDs. With swap, Puppy Linux will run, but not great. At this level of RAM, Damn Small Linux is much better. Especially if it has the apps you need. For just casual Web browsing, you have Firefox and Dillo. There are text editors, Ted for word processing ... and if you have space on your hard drive, you can get Abiword, plus a whole lot more as MyDSL extensions. But as far as performance goes, DSL does better than anything I've tried. Right now I have OpenBSD 4.2 on the hard drive, and performance with these specs is nowhere near as good as DSL and Puppy. One thing I'm doing: I am close to bumping up the memory from 64 MB to the max for my box, which unfortunately is only 144 MB. However, with swap I think that's enough to comfortably run Puppy from live CD. It'll certainly make for a better Damn Small Linux experience. How much it will help with OpenBSD, I'm not sure. I've also run Debian Etch on this box (233 MHz Pentium II MMX), and its performance was similar to that of OpenBSD. The live CD-based distros just do better. I suspect that even doing a hard drive install, if you really want that, of Puppy or DSL would also work quite well. Never understimate the power of running most or all of your OS and apps in memory, even with 64 MB. My other problem is that I have only a 3 GB hard drive. I've installed Slackware 12, leaving out KDE, and I didn't have much space. The Debian Xfce install left me with a bit more space -- I could've gotten even more if I dumped OpenOffice, but it ran surprisingly well in 64 MB. Xubuntu wouldn't install, nor would Vector, Zenwalk, FreeBSD and NetBSD. I can't emphasize enough that with 64 MB, not just anything will run. But if you do have a CD drive, I think you will be happier running a combination of Damn Small and Puppy from live CD. Especially when drive space is scarce, DSL can be better. In Puppy, you need to set aside a block of space for the pup_save file that's a certain size, from 16 MB up to about 2 GB. No matter how many files you have in the space, the pup_save occupies the same amount of space. That's OK if you have enough space (or want to make a very small pup_save and keep your files outside of it, which is more than doable). In DSL, the files and configuration are saved in a compressed archive that is a) easily accessed from other Linux distros (unlike Puppy's pup_save, which is pretty much Puppy only), and b) takes up only as much space as the compressed files in it. The bottom line is to try everything before settling on anything. Then use what works for you. I've heard that Damn Small Linux is going to eventually move from the 2.4 to the 2.6 kernel and include a Firefox that is version 2 (current version is 1.0.6, I think). It's something I'm really waiting for, because I really need FF 2 for a lot of the Web work I do, and Puppy's Seamonkey does give me that functionality (and I like the mail client and HTML editor, too). So I'm caught between two great distros for underpowered computers ... and if performance of OpenBSD gets significantly better with 144 MB of RAM, that's a pretty sweet system as well. It even has all my daughter's educational software that she uses in Debian, and things like the Dillo browser for some reason look better in OpenBSD than they do anywhere else (don't ask me why, because I have no idea; I just enjoy using it). It's nice to have choices. It's even nicer to have more RAM. I've found that a lot of problems go away when you hit 256 MB, you can run almost anything with 512 MB, and 1 GB is even better. I've never used more than that. But I know all too well that many older motherboards max out at low amounts of RAM. Re: PPPoe ... don't all the DSL modems output to Ethernet these days? |
| bigg Apr 22, 2008 1:41 PM EDT |
> nor would Vector, Zenwalk, FreeBSD and NetBSD. Zenwalk requires a lot more memory than that to install. I believe it's something like 192 MB. If you want to install Vector you will need the Light version I linked above. The motivation, as I understand it, was that 64 MB is not enough for Vector Standard. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 22, 2008 8:36 PM EDT |
I didn't know there was a light Vector. Intriguing. I'm still partial to Wolvix, but I couldn't get that to boot on my 64 MB box. This Vector Light might be just the thing ... but when I get that massive 144 MB of RAM, I'll be un-bleepin'-stoppable. |
You cannot post until you login.