1  2  |   Order by index

Aug 26, 2003, 1:41am

Yeah, Linux is awesome for serving on slower machines. :) I have a copy
running on a really slow machine doing network monitoring, IRC egging, and
some other crazy things. But, if you have the power there, and would like
something with a little bit more oomph, and patching the crap out of it...
eh ;)

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 1:45am

Oh, sambar is really good, but the web administration is rather vulnerable.
:) Its a good webserver otherwise. Just don't give out your password. ;)
Also, ISS is ok, if you patch it, and disable a bunch of stuff, and remove
some default scripts, and have a trained monkey with a shotgun to shoot the
server if anyone hacks in...

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 1:48am

Do a search for Xitami and then Apache on
http://www.securityspace.com/smysecure/search.html and take a look at
the results.

Builderz
http://www.3dhost.net

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 1:51am

Sambar seems pretty stable to me, but you are right -- the admin area
needs some work and it has had some security vulnerabilities in the past
(but most are fixed relatively quickly). I know IIS can be secured and
work well on some systems, but I myself wouldn't touch it with a ten
foot pole. I suggest anyone that use it lock it down as tightly as
possible.

Builderz
http://www.3dhost.net

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 1:59am

Whatever someone ends up convincing you to use, just don't put your
credit card numbers on it, and don't let it play with your other computers
if you have any.

I didn't know they had a KF Server... if it's anything like their chicken it
sounds tasty. Don't go near the MacServer... it can serve billions, but
you probably want to have some idea what they're actually being
served.

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 2:16am

Uh, is it safe to keep my credit card numbers in a text file on my desk top
called "credit numbers.txt"? I mean, its not on my webserver, it must be
safe!

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 2:28am

[View Quote] Linux has oomph as well. Linux doesn't even need monitors, or a virtual
desktop to administrate it.

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 74
Processing time: 66 days, 6 hours.
(Total hours: 1590)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Aug 26, 2003, 2:30am

[View Quote] It's safer to keep it on paper, less disasters can get to the paper.
Let's face it, if you lock your doors you're keeping out more people
than you would by firewalling/portblocking a PC.

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 74
Processing time: 66 days, 6 hours.
(Total hours: 1590)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Aug 26, 2003, 2:40am

All of my windows servers run monitorless just fine. :O

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 6:45am

[View Quote] Can you administrate them without a monitor or a virtual desktop?

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Linux is a godly OS, that's an understatement.

Aug 26, 2003, 10:05am

i am thick when it comes to net stuff and couldnt
get apache setup.

so for the last year i have been useing liteserve which
is brillient, it is http, ftp, email etc , has auto dir listing
if no index html is present, it has pw protection, current connections and
lots of usefull things, its all GUI based no
scripts and so easy to setup.

http://www.cmfperception.com/liteserve.html

Aug 26, 2003, 10:53am

Thanks Builderz:)
I'll check that one out also. I really don't need alot of bells and
whistles, just something that will allow web veiwing and world hosting.
G6 works for the ftping.
Bit:)

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 10:54am

Would a bunch of flying monkeys work?:)

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 10:56am

Thanks Codewarrior:)
Definately nothing of importance or threat on this pc....I think:)

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 10:57am

Thanks Tag sva:)
I'll check that one out also.
Thanks everyone for the great advice and help.
Wish me luck!
Sincerely,
Bit:)

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 11:07am

Spendy,rofl
[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 12:17pm

He should be able to if he uses VNC, Radmin, or some other remote admin
software and has another computer on his LAN.

Builderz
http://www.3dhost.net

[View Quote] > Can you administrate them without a monitor or a virtual desktop?
>
> --
> --Bowen--
> http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
> Linux is a godly OS, that's an understatement.

Aug 26, 2003, 2:38pm

Now, VNC is nice, but, I do prefer the virtual desktop.... I mean, who
wouldn't? Its so silky smooth... So, I guess I cant admin my machines
without a little bit of the ole' virtual desktop magic. ;)

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 2:39pm

I guess something could be arranged. ;)

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 3:21pm

[View Quote] VNC, Radmin, etc are virtual desktops. I can administrate it without
either. Command line is your friend.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Linux is a godly OS, that's an understatement.

Aug 26, 2003, 3:22pm

[View Quote] You must've installed the older 1.# servers. Everyone, if you tried to
install apache before... you have to uninstall all previous versions of
apache before you try to install 2.0 and get it to work (you don't
really have to, but, unless you know computers like Andras you're
probably not going to get it to work right).

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Linux is a godly OS, that's an understatement.

Aug 26, 2003, 3:48pm

Virtual desktop? Sorry, I'm just dumb, but what is it and where do you get
it? lol
[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 4:23pm

Hmmmm....ok....I am getting the idea that winxp runs an ICS for networking
and LAN Networking.
If it's enabled then we can be networked on the LAN but not the WAN?
Or if we turn it off we can't run the WAN but can run a server?
Does any of this make sense?...lol
Also, we don't seem to be able to run the world server program on the pc
that's the server....weird...or I have lost it?:)

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 7:08pm

I do use an SSH client to connect to a BSD shell (thanks Tony :)
remotely and use a limited amount commands via the command line, BTW. XP
does have its DOS-like command line, and you can run scripts and things
over a network using it, but I don't believe you can truly admin a
Windows box with a command line remotely -- so you are correct there.

However, even if VNC, Radmin, etc. do resemble a great portion of your
Windows UI (or just redraw the whole screen), I personally don't call
them "virtual desktops." I remember using some old program where you
could make four separate desktops on your Windows machine and switch
from one to the other very easily -- on the client side. In that case,
yes, I might call those extra desktop areas and programs like VMWare
"virtual desktops." However, I would call VNC, Radmin, etc. simply
"remote admin software." But that's just me and I don't want to start a
twenty post flame war over the different phrases. :P

Builderz
http://www.3dhost.net

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 7:33pm

A virtual desktop is a "virtual desktop" simply because it isn't the _real_
desktop of the machine (i.e. transported over the network using Windows
Terminal Services, VNC, etc, etc). A program that makes the illusion of
multiple desktops doesn't make "virtual desktops", because they are real to
that machine. VMWare isn't a "virtual desktop", because its an x86
emulator. Now, calling programs such as VNC a "remote administration tool",
is like calling a microwave a "device that could be used to hammer a nail
into the wall." or perhaps a popsicle a "really cold thing that can numb
the skin.". Just because admins use these to insecurely connect to their
boxes, doesn't mean that's their only use, and naming them so would just
turn people off from using them. These programs would fit better under the
title "Desktop remote control daemons.".

BSD sucks, try to get this "Tony" fellow to install Linux. Also, if you're
limited to a small set of commands, you've got to have a really, really bad
account. XP's commandline (dos), is only open for remote machine recovery,
I believe, or so it is on 2k3. But, DOS was very limited as a shell, bash,
tsh, and the like to a much better job (9000x better, that is). Running
scripts over a network connection is just asking for your machine to be
hacked. Also, there are a few windows SSH servers available. Perhaps KAH
can hook you up with his CYGWIN "uberness".

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 9:36pm

Builderz agreed to only use his account for a specific purpose, and thusly has no need for other commands. Really, the only commands he has no access to are most of the utilites found in /sbin/.

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2003, 9:54pm

Well, I mean, if you only want to use some simple stuff. There's like, a
million shells that will give you a crontab and a full account on the system
for free. And a plus, they're not hosting on BSD. ;)

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 27, 2003, 2:42am

Most do RedHat, Slackware, and.. crap, forgot the other... but there's a
bunch.. though what suprised me that there was a 'College Linux...' wonder
whats in it O_o

Aug 27, 2003, 2:57am

Slackware is awesome, if you know what you're doing. But, redhat is the
easiest to install, and nicest on 64bit processors. Works like a charm on
my DEC box.

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 27, 2003, 3:48pm

RedHat's nice. :) Got a friend here who just formated to goto Slackware.

1  2  |   Order by index