Linux-Advocacy Digest #563, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! (dc)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("JS/PL")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! ("Mike")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2? (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("JS/PL")
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Mike Byrns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:12:46 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > dc wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> > > >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> > > >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> > > >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> > > >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> > > >sending you messages about updates you need.
> > >
> > > Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
> > people's privacy to see what is and isnt
> > running on their systems? Even better huh?
>
> Hey sharpie... none of that information goes OUT
> on the internet. The WUC (Windows Update Checker)
> goes out to see what updates are available, and
> then (locally) checks the differences and lets
> you know that newer updates are available.
Ah... of course... that would amount to
all the upload traffic. Has to download info
to cross check.
>
> If you consider that a privacy violation, then
> why are you on the computer? Shouldn't you be in
> a secluded cabin somewhere in Montana typing
> a manifesto on a typewriter and sending out
> conspicuous letters that tick?
I primarily use OS/2... no privacy concerns
there. I occassionally use a MAC... none there
either. I sometimes use Linux... havent found
any there yet. And I have a 98 game machine
not connected to anything but the power outlet...
no concerns there either... oh - one NT box connected
to a printer... dont think that printer will
be sending anything onto the net or hacked into
though since the machine has no network card
or modem....
So, no... the machines i use on the net do not
worry me about my privacy or the security of
said machines.
>
> > They had a court injunction against them when Win95
> > was released to remove that crap.
>
> Really? Which one was this, specifically?
Well, want the quick way to find out? Check the MS
against near-everyone case that is still awaiting
appeal. They cite it there. It was the precursor
to the bundling injunction that was then overruled
for the same reason - the injunction targetted a certain
version, allowing MS to slip by with 98 and bundling.
>
> > They kept the NetBIOS hole and disabled the function to later
> > re-enable it in 2K. Ooops... the judge probably
> > didnt specify "Windows OS's" and specified
> > Win95 specifically. Irregardless, what right
> > do they have to do such?
>
> Which NetBIOS hole would this be, specifically?
> (URLs please, no more idle conjecture)
the hole isnt a URL... the hole is the same port139
NetBIOS session binding that has always existed
in Win9X and now W2K.
>
> > > >But that's a little off the topic... the point is, even
> > > >if MS eliminated all the security holes (and ya need
> > > >to plug Win2K first before any claim of IIS5 security
> > > >is valid), it cant serve worth anything in comparison
> > > >to Linux, OS/2, BSD or OSX for that matter.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > Ah - if ths OS isnt secure, it's ok as long as
> > IIS is?
>
> Who says the OS isn't secure. The TSEC (someone who
> obviously knows more about security than you) would
> disagree.
Ah... guess all those holes noted in all
the online security sites were really nothing.
Not to mention trade rags...
www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,14908,00.html
www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,2430159,00.html
www.nwfusion.com/news/2000/0131win2000hole.html
www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1526029.html
www.winmag.com/columns/nextlevel/2000/01.htm
www.hrea.org/lists/huridocs-tech/markup/msg00504.html
www.foxnews.com/vtech/news/windows/windows2k.sml
www.tss.northwestern.edu/windows/win2k/security.html
www.labmice.net/w2kArticles.htm
www.trustedsystems.com/nt_security.htm
www.cuug.ab.ca/~leblancj/nt_to_unix.html
mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/2000-05/msg00011.html
www.winmag.com/columns/powerw2k/2000/14.htm
Is that enough?
Oh - and on another note... NT against the unix
variants...
This done by DH Brown and Assoc... not IBM.
http://www.rs6000.ibm.com/resource/consult/dhbrown/osfrev.html
Last in all but PC client support... rock bottom last.
>
> > Gee that one went out the door with
> > plenty of previous IIS releases proving that
> > an insecure OS made running IIS on it
> > insecure.
>
> Ah, and so Domino is perfect, right? Shall I list
> all the security exploits for Domino/Notes?
>
Feel free... I didnt say they dont exist...
but the difference is, if I call about a hole
in Domino or Domino Go even, Lotus/IBM create
an APAR and a fix. If I call MS, I pay a shitload
an hour to be told there's no hole... till
it gets enough media attention, and then a few
months later a fix is quietly released.
IBM actually had one snafu with Warp - WSeB
no less... the new TCPIP stack was prone to
lock up under one certain type of attack.
IBM was told late Friday of one week, the next
day, the patch was released. The problem was
noted for ALL to see.
None of them are perfect... everyone else
though treats it a lot more seriously when
their products have problems... in IBM's
case, it wasnt even a security issue. Just
a problem that would make the server
auto-restart (if set up properly), and if the
admin was good, block the offending user
in it's AIX borrowed built in firewall.
Sure every package has it's issues...
when I looked up DominoGo on a big security
site (who's URL I will post later...
it's on my home machine), it came up
with none for 4.6.2.6 (current release)...
IIS and 2K or NT though... or 2K alone...
well, it was a few pages. There were a
few older DominoGo issues, and some
Domino/Notes issues - all publicly noted
by Lotus on their site, and fixed near
immediately... unlike some of the holes
that carried over to NT and 2K that were
YEARS old - read the articles if you
have any doubts.
> > Oh - add to that, W2K was supposed
> > to be secure...
>
> It is.
>
> > and turned out not to be.
>
> Since when? What planet are you living on?
Read the articles.
>
> > Give IIS 5 some time... a few more weeks at most is
> > my guess and the reports will start coming in
> > of college and high school kids who have hacked
> > into it.
>
> A few more weeks? On top of the months its been
> out already? How much longer should we wait?
I'll look up the holes found later... bet ya
there are already some.
>
> > Happens every time they release some new "secure"
> > product.
>
> Every time?
>
Let's see... Win95 (trust us! those arent holes!)
Win 3.5, 3.51, NT 4, (dont worry SP2 will fix it!
I mean SP3... ummm 4, 5? maybe 6! Try...) Win2K...
ooops that didnt cut it either. So yes... every
time. As we all know they didnt even bother
claiming 98 was secure - and of course it
wasnt. Oooh - even their firewall had holes...
how nice, huh? I loved that since the favored
NT admin answer was "gee, just enable the
firewall... (that doesnt work)".
> -Chad
Dolly
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:14:06 -0500
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:47:13 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>dc wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:37:12 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >dc wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
>> >> >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
>> >> >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
>> >> >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
>> >> >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
>> >> >sending you messages about updates you need.
>> >>
>> >> Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
>> >people's privacy to see what is and isnt
>> >running on their systems?
>>
>> Who is "they"? If you don't want to run the update agents, don't.
>> Turn it off - it's not rocket science! Newbies love it, though - far
>> less maintenance.
>
>Odd... the message came up with it off... maybe
>having IE running disables that setting?
>
>
>>
>> If you want to disable Netbios, do it.
>
>
>You cannot disable NetBIOS. If you dont install
>it, a subset of it is still installed in the TCP
>stack as always allowing NetBIOS port 139 usage.
Turn off port 139.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:18:30 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:BewE5.28074$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > dc wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> > > > >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> > > > >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> > > > >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> > > > >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> > > > >sending you messages about updates you need.
> > > >
> > > > Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
> > > people's privacy to see what is and isnt
> > > running on their systems? Even better huh?
> >
>
> <SNIP: Me talking about something different>
>
> Sorry, I got mixed up and though you were talking about
> the Windows Update, which has been the topic of previous
> threads.
>
> What exact privacy problems are you referring to?
>
> -Chad
The holes left open as noted in the posts sent...
notably seemingly NetBIOS traffic on a non
NetBIOS network that W2K isnt supposed to be
able to send.
Install a non Win machine with no NetBIOS.
Install a W2K machine with no NetBIOS. Run
a port sniffer on the non win machine...
use the W2K machine.. .on the web, on MS's
site, let it run a week or two... look at
what the other machine logs...
We now have no NT machines of any version or
sort on our network. Seems the only way to be
truly secure.
Yeah, they fixed the OOB crash problem, hid
the port usage by not responding to more
than a few specific things, but...
Makes ya wonder... or at least it makes ME
wonder... but we dont have a single NT machine
networked at all anymore and now only have
a single NT machine - for a special printer
that Warp and Linux dont print to.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:15:00 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > They kept the NetBIOS hole and disabled the function to later
> > re-enable it in 2K. Ooops... the judge probably
> > didnt specify "Windows OS's" and specified
> > Win95 specifically. Irregardless, what right
> > do they have to do such?
Maybe we should let "The Judge" write the next OS and all you idiots
depending on "The Judge" can be forced to use it.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:19:35 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
dc wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:47:13 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >dc wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:37:12 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >dc wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> >> >> >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> >> >> >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> >> >> >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> >> >> >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> >> >> >sending you messages about updates you need.
> >> >>
> >> >> Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
> >> >people's privacy to see what is and isnt
> >> >running on their systems?
> >>
> >> Who is "they"? If you don't want to run the update agents, don't.
> >> Turn it off - it's not rocket science! Newbies love it, though - far
> >> less maintenance.
> >
> >Odd... the message came up with it off... maybe
> >having IE running disables that setting?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> If you want to disable Netbios, do it.
> >
> >
> >You cannot disable NetBIOS. If you dont install
> >it, a subset of it is still installed in the TCP
> >stack as always allowing NetBIOS port 139 usage.
>
> Turn off port 139.
You cant.
Just like the 9X releases... you can try
to disable it all you want... it doesnt.
It hides better, and since it doesnt usually
crash on OOB data, no one notices it, but
it is not disablable.
Dolly
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:20:53 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
JS/PL wrote:
>
> > >"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > They kept the NetBIOS hole and disabled the function to later
> > > re-enable it in 2K. Ooops... the judge probably
> > > didnt specify "Windows OS's" and specified
> > > Win95 specifically. Irregardless, what right
> > > do they have to do such?
>
> Maybe we should let "The Judge" write the next OS and all you idiots
> depending on "The Judge" can be forced to use it.
Nah - maybe I just wont use their products... if Wine
or Odin fully make prime time, our one NT box will
be formatted quite quickly and finally be connected
to the network.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:21:03 GMT
They already have. People have complained that Windows 9x was not stable so Microsoft
took a long hard look at it and said they were right. The game plan is to get Windows
2000 to be just as easy to use as Windows 9x was but with all the security and
reliability of the NT kernel. That was the plan all along -- pushing DirectX for games
to break ties with DOS, adding great PnP to Windows 2000, changing the driver model in
Windows 98 to be the same as 2000, etc. As for bloat im barely using 64MB under 2000
with Netscape, SETI@Home, IIS5 and 14 other processes running. I think Windows 2000
has
trimmed down if anything -- I can't remember ever getting that kind of memory
performance with Windows 98 but it's been over a year and a half since I've run it
since
the Windows 2000 betas were so good.
Gardiner Family wrote:
> I am fine and dandy with my copy of SuSE Linux 7, however, I simply stating that
> unless a large number of users discontented with windows is made noticable to
> microsoft, things will never change.
>
> matt
>
> Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> > Gardiner Family wrote:
> >
> > > calm down claire, maybe I was a little rude in my response. However, the thing
> > > I keep hearing is, "Windows is not stable", my response, "change OS's", there
> > > response "why should I?", with the attitude, "Why should I?", windows will never
> > > improve until customers start telling Microsoft with their purchasing power that
> > > they want improved stability, un-bloated software and reliabilty.
> >
> > Maybe you should get Windows 2000.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:37:00 -0500
In article <8rtr5m$1bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My dear friends, soon, really soon (ok, or a little later, but who
>> cares) Linux will finally have the DVD player it deserves.
>>
>> http://www.intervideo.com/jsp/LinDVD.jsp
>>
>> Hmm, I'm really looking forward to the release of this thingie, let's
>> wait and see.
>
> Unfortunately, the MPAA is doing everything they can to prevent this
> thing from coming to market. Furthermore, they are allowing Microsoft
> to do exactly what they are trying to prevent LinDVD and DeCSS from
> doing.
>
I believe you are mistaken here. InterVideo is licensed to produce DVD
players. During the DeCSS trial the MPAA made claims that there was
already a DVD player for linux and cited InterVideo as its creator. The
thing is, InterVideo says they have no intention of producing a consumer
version of the software. So, it may actually be vaporware, all smoke and
mirrors for the benifit of the MPAA's position in the DeCSS trials.
DeCSS is entirely separate from LinDVD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:30:21 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >were needed. dual processors each, 512MB RAM. Oooh the
> > > > >joy of serving 100X the content to 10X the people on ONE
> > > > >OS/2 box. From what I understand Linux is as proficient
> > > > >or almost as proficent as Warp in that respect. And IBM's
> > > > >claim is that Warp's TCP/IP stack is "the best" (not "one
> > > > >of", or "almost") TCP/IP stack there is. Period. It shows.
> > > > >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> > > > >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> > > > >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> > > > >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> > > > >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> > > > >sending you messages about updates you need.
> > > >
> > > > Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> > >
> > > Dolly is an IBMvocate, this level of thinking IS rocket
> > > science to him/her.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> >
> > Ah yes... MS says they will stop doing something.
> > They dont.
>
> Cites please?
>
> > MS lies and says they did stop. They
> > didnt.
>
> Didn't stop what?
>
> > MS finally publicly admits they never did,
> > and the answer is... "ooh, just turn it off" by which
> > I presume you mean the machine - good answer for
> > a server... and since if you install TCPIP and NOT
> > NetBIOS, it still installs NetBIOS code that is
> > hard-coded into the stack I know it's not NetBIOS
> > you mean I should turn off.
>
> It's hard-coded into the stack? What's this little
> checkbox that says "Enable NetBIOS over TCP/IP"
> for, then?
>
> Dolly, please get a clue before you embarass yourself
> further.
>
> -Chad
Chad,
We;ve installed tons of Win9X and NT boxes all with
that stupid checkbox disabled... the earlier
versions a simple portscan would reveal NetBIOS
bound to port 139 anyway. The newer versions still
bind it but hide it better.
Try my little test yourself if you dont believe
me.
Or read the articles I sent, and look for more
regarding NetBIOS/port139 holes and "defective"
checkboxes.
Dolly
PS: We dont use it anymore, we dont care... I
wasnt trying to start an argument, just point
out stuff others have cited that we have also
noticed. Left you some URLs as starting points
for the security issues and I think 1 or 2 for
the NetBIOS issue... I'll look for that one
last URL when I get home and try to remember
to post it in a day or two... but a dozen
links I think is already enough on this whole
W2K (lack of) security thing.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:31:52 GMT
2:1 wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Gardiner Family wrote:
> >
> > > calm down claire, maybe I was a little rude in my response. However, the thing
> > > I keep hearing is, "Windows is not stable", my response, "change OS's", there
> > > response "why should I?", with the attitude, "Why should I?", windows will never
> > > improve until customers start telling Microsoft with their purchasing power that
> > > they want improved stability, un-bloated software and reliabilty.
> >
> > Maybe you should get Windows 2000.
>
> Or mabey you should spend your money on something more worthwhile.
> And are you trying to claim Win2K is not bloated? It's way to big to run
> comfortably on my computer.
Really? How much RAM do you have? I've run it comfortably on 64MB. MacOS and
Mandrake
Linux with Gnome both claim to use more RAM than Windows 2000 in my tests. I have
256MB
but under normal use I hardly ever use more than 80MB or so even with Netscape, IIS5,
SETI@Home and 14 or more other processes running. Remember that this is Windows 2000
Pro, not server. It only requires 64MB and that works well considering it's spledid
memory management. Just the little innovation that pages in the disk cache and VM are
mapped to each other helps quite a bit. Think about it -- you have loaded an app and
some of it's pages are VM alloc'd -- they are already mapped into your address space
from the cache. Of course all Windows 2000 protection and security still apply but it
keeps the OS from having to rob Peter (the disk cache) to pay Paul (the VM).
Everybody's happy! And I've got RAM (and performance) to burn!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2?
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:39:38 GMT
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:16:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Hi, I have 2 PCs that I'd like to setup together to
|learn Apache webserver, printer server and DNS. Can
|someone help me please.
|
| I have 2 NIC cards (NE2000), 1 hub and Rhat Linux 6.2.
|
| Can someone give me the step-by-step procedure?
|
| Thanks!
RedHat 6.2 should detect the ne2000 cards automatically, it certainly
did for me.
If you are going to have these 2 machines isolated on their own little
network, then DNS is probably going to be your biggest headache. DNS
servers want to be able to talk to the DNS root servers at startup,
and yours won't be able to.
My suggestion is to not run any DNS servers at all. Edit /etc/nsswitch.conf
so the 'hosts:' line just says 'hosts: files' and put all your
IP address and server name information into /etc/hosts on both machines.
This will get you started, and you can read up on DNS later. It is
certainly possible to configure you machines to think they are
the root servers and run an entire seperate DNS heirarchy on your
network, but I'd leave that for a bit later ;)
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:33:02 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > > >"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > They kept the NetBIOS hole and disabled the function to later
> > > > re-enable it in 2K. Ooops... the judge probably
> > > > didnt specify "Windows OS's" and specified
> > > > Win95 specifically. Irregardless, what right
> > > > do they have to do such?
> >
> > Maybe we should let "The Judge" write the next OS and all you idiots
> > depending on "The Judge" can be forced to use it.
>
>
> Nah - maybe I just wont use their products... if Wine
> or Odin fully make prime time, our one NT box will
> be formatted quite quickly and finally be connected
> to the network.
Format it now.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:43:15 GMT
2:1 wrote:
> Gardiner Family wrote:
> >
> > Chad, calm down, take a deep breath.
> >
> > Although there are lots of different text editors, cd burners and such, Linux
> > caters for my needs quite well. Although StarOffice is not the greatest suite
> > ever designed, there is also Wordperfect Suite 2000 and other Suites are on there
> > way. Right now, Linux is not fully catering for everypersons needs due to the
> > linux-phobea many companys have. Also, there are many technical limitations, such
> > as the appauling quality of how fonts are displayed via X-Server. Here is what
> > needs to happen b4 joe bloggs adopts Linux:
>
> I think most modern distros display the X fonts fine. They all come
> running the truetype server.
I think Windows displays them better and with more consistant support across all
applications. Anti-aliasing and OpenType fonts really make the case.
> > 1. Highly Intergrated Graphic User Interface, not based on X-Server.
>
> The X server is very useful, especially for running remote apps.
Whistler will do this better.
> Besides, why drop it? it has drivers,
Yes it does. But none are as sophisticated as their Windows counterparts.
> it's fast enough
Windows is faster.
> and it works
> well.
I think Windows works better.
> You can build an integrated GUI on top of X. Look at GNOME and
> KDE.
Windows is an integrated GUI directly on top of the kernel. No X Window System
overhead.
> > 2. Greater Hardware Support by Hardware venders.
> That would be nice.
Start making some of them some cash and maybe they will support you better.
> > 3. More home/family/education orientated applications written for it.
>
> gcc can be pretty education orientated :-)
When are you going to start the toddlers on that? :-) I agree with you there though.
You do need to really think for yourself and be independent with a pioneering spirit to
start programming X. My kids meanwhile are programming VB at 8 and 11 and the 11 year
old is outgrowing it and asking about C++ and Java. But then again they are _my_ kids
:-)
> > 4. Consolidation of GNU Applications, there are 4 CD-Burning applications for
> > Linux, combine the four into one, powerfull application.
>
> They are already powerful apps. Why take the choice away from other
> users. If you want Joe to use it, then only include one with your
> distro.
When Joe has to go to one program to do one thing and another program to do another he
gets annoyed and goes back to NASCAR, WWF or Windows with the EZ CD Creator that came
with his computer.
> > 5. Marketing needs to be improved. Advertise via web, tv, and
> > magazines/newspapers
>
> Someone's gotta pay.
You are right on that. Who's got the tab these days? RedHat, VA? Seems no one is
making enough on Linux to foot that bill.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
