What I have: DSL 3.0 and 2.0 - 2.0 is installed to HD - 3.0 is running from cd
XP is 'running as full install'
Both DSL's are running inside MS Virtual PC's
--------- what I can do: both DSL's/XP can access internet. all pc's can ping each other I can log on to both DSL's - from XP - and each DSL can log onto the other DSL box...
(this is using ssh - that is how I am logging onto the 'other' DSL box from a DSL box)
Logging on from XP is by using (ssh active on DSL) and winscp (free download -> winscp) With winscp - I can transfer files between XP and DSL. (again - only ssh needs to be active on DSL)
---- What I WANT to do: Connect from DSL box to DSL box... (and eventially to XP) Preferrably with a gui (axyftp or emelfm ?)
I have tried using ftp - but can't log on that way (the password isn't the same as the ssh connection - guessing configuration is needed?? (ftp - (text mode) would be a bit slow/cumbersome/time consuming for moving lots of files)
Logging on with ssh - doesn't allow file transfer (?) - I can execute apps on the other box.... but that's not what I really want to do.
-- and ... I can connect via Remote Desktop - to a 2003 server - (still from the virtual DSL box)... that's alot of penquin power -- Hope I'm clear...
TIA TMSo you know exactly what you want to do, that's good and all.. But I'm not sure the rest of us do? Go to the menu>System>AddUsers, add a username, then click the BetaFTP button in the DSLpanel. After that you can ftp into that user's account from another computer. Or is it that you want to transfer stuff between these different operating system on the same computer? Because if that's the case then there's no need for ftp at all, when you can simply mount the other filesystem and transfer files with emelfm as you wanted. I can't see why there's a need for ftp if it's just virtual operating systems on the same computer.
Quote
I can't see why there's a need for ftp if it's just virtual operating systems on the same computer.
Because virtual operating systems use virtual hardware...the virtual devices available in one virtual system are not the same as those in another virtual system, so they must be networked rather than mounted.Hmm, that's interesting. So is it the case that it's actually impossible to mount them like this, or is it a failing of the mount system that could in theory be rectified with a new version? That's a bummer about the FTP thing, kind of a hackish workaround to the problem.I'm not sure what the source of the limitation is, and I have no experience with virtualpc. I assume a network can be established between the two virtual systems (using the host as a nat server?) so that shares can be accessed through regular networking (samba maybe?). I can't say for sure...the only similar experience I've had is connecting a vmware machine to its host system.Next Page...
original here.