So, where is it? ;-)
> So the main flaw seems like the nsswitch.conf file hasn't
> been configured. It is still in its `example' phase. I never did
> know what
> nsswitch was supposed to do.
It's a bit of a catch-all file that denotes where to look up certain bits of information. The "hosts:" line for instance, tells the resolver library what order of services to use to resolve hostnames to IP addresses (the possible services being stuff like the local hosts file, DNS, NIS, MDNS, etc).
> The resolve.conf has the right address. The ifconfig as eth0 (on-
> board network card)
> has its address right. eth1 which is the ethernet card that came
> with the DSL modem
> has the right static IP address and right netmask etc.
So, what is the connection to the Internet? Is it eth0 or eth1? What is it connected to? Why does it have a static IP address? I woulda thunk the default would be some DHCP provided IP from the NAT box or cable/DSL modem head-end. And if you don't have a NAT box, please get one. Simplest and fairly effective form of security. You should see the port-scanning that goes on my gateway on a daily basis.
> But aren't there supposed to be
> other `devices' like inetd daemons. See? I have to go back and re-
> learn all this stuff
inetd is a super daemon -- a process that makes it possible for non- sockets types (people I mean) to write network server applications. It handles the socket listen/accept/select/read/write/close sequences and connects the socket to stdin/stdout of the actual process/app implementing the service. There's no reason why that would show up in 'ifconfig' output. Some types of 'netstat' output includes socket information, but I just want the routing table ('netstat -nr').
> In the nsswitch file it has a line `hosts:'. What should go there?
> This might be where
> the problem is...
First we need to figure out if you have lost network connectivity or just name resolution. The files nsswitch.conf and resolv.conf deal with name resolution i.e., the ability (as you know) to use names instead of IP addresses when talking to a remote system. You don't need them at all for reaching a host by IP. So here's an IP address for www.google.com: 64.233.169.99. Can you ping it? Let us make sure that you have IP connectivity.
The "hosts: file" says to the resolver to look up host names to IP mapping only in the /etc/hosts file. Not a good idea, unless you are downloading the old HOSTS.txt ;-). You want that to say "hosts: files dns". But that assumes DNS server is configured, which may or may not be the case, since you are not using DHCP but instead a static IP address.
> Hey, btw, I reinstalled FreeBSD 6.2 yesterday and it runs. But then
> I had to configure
> the network and all that other stuff, so I pulled out Ubuntu 7.04.
> I'll say this Ubuntu,
> the install is smooth and the configurations for printer work out of
> the box. Sound, audio
> and DVD/CD read and write work. The other nice feature of Ubuntu is
> partitioning the disk,
> installing a dual boot and selectable OS systems, then moving xp to
> a new partition all work
> automatically if you choose them. That part is completely unlike BSD
> that makes you do
> these things manually.
Absolutely. I don't blame you for using Ubuntu and I agree with you about the lesser effort.
--ravi