Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:02:31PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: (So that we can experiment with finding alternative venues, as there are reasons why some people think The Calthorpe Arms isn't perfect venue. It's pretty good, but people can ways it might not be perfect) The perfect venue is not possible, because there are disagreements about what perfect means by everyone, and therefore you can't make it everyone's perfect venue (because for one person it won't be, at least), and so it isn't the perfect venue. QED Sod it for a game of soldiers, The Calthorpe Arms is fine. :-) -- Lusercop.net - LARTing Lusers everywhere since 2002
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:56:31AM +0100, Lusercop wrote: On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:02:31PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: (So that we can experiment with finding alternative venues, as there are reasons why some people think The Calthorpe Arms isn't perfect venue. It's pretty good, but people can ways it might not be perfect) The perfect venue is not possible, because there are disagreements about what perfect means by everyone, and therefore you can't make it everyone's perfect venue (because for one person it won't be, at least), and so it isn't the perfect venue. Agree Sod it for a game of soldiers, The Calthorpe Arms is fine. :-) I agree it's fine. However, it is a moderately long walk from the nearest underground station. (it's managed to pick a sweet spot (a bitter spot?) moderately equidistant from three underground stations, so it's certainly an above average distance) It is approaching one of the less nice parts of central London, sufficient for one london.pm member's wife to insist that he doesn't go there. That may sound trivial - in some ways it is - 1 person out of many, subjective rather than objective. But it's also the first location (that I've been aware of) where this has happened, and I admit that I don't find it a particularly pleasant walk late at night down Gray's Inn Road. (Unlike walking late at night along High Holborn, Kingsway, The Strand, or any of the other wider, well lit and busier roads) Nicholas Clark
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: I agree it's fine. However, it is a moderately long walk from the nearest underground station. (it's managed to pick a sweet spot (a bitter spot?) moderately equidistant from three underground stations, so it's certainly an above average distance) Also, I have been informed (by only one person) that it is a little disabled-unfriendly and so I have not been along to a meet since they started being held there. Kate has tried to find somewhere better (e.g. nearer to the tube station, loos on same floor as function room, etc.) but none so far... Also, if you say it is in a slightly dodgy area, I am even less inclined to try to come along... -- Natalie S. Ford . [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.natalie.ourshack.org .. http://natalief.livejournal.com
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:46:30AM +0100, Natalie S. Ford wrote: Also, if you say it is in a slightly dodgy area, I am even less inclined to try to come along... I believe Greg can point you towards a charming little place in the back of a mini-cab stand in Soho. It would be an, errr, interesting meeting. -- mike A whole lotta hoot and just a little bit of nanny
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri Oct 18 10:26:57 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote: However, it is a moderately long walk from the nearest underground station. (it's managed to pick a sweet spot (a bitter spot?) moderately equidistant from three underground stations, so it's certainly an above average distance) It is approaching one of the less nice parts of central London, sufficient for one london.pm member's wife to insist that he doesn't go there. What's wrong with that area? Should I avoid it? Are there other parts of central London that I should maybe avoid? I'm staying 10 minutes walk away from the Calthorpe Arms, close to Russell Square tube station. I've noticed 2 safe-looking pubs very close to Russell Square: I'll check them out, but I've no idea what you all consider good features of a pub. -- Marty
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On 18/10/02 11:29 +0100, Marty Pauley wrote: It is approaching one of the less nice parts of central London, sufficient for one london.pm member's wife to insist that he doesn't go there. What's wrong with that area? Should I avoid it? Are there other parts of central London that I should maybe avoid? No, as I just ranted. Bloomsbury is lovely. Right up around King's Cross (the two or three streets immediately surrounding the station) it does get dodgy. You will see very ill-looking hookers and people dealing drugs openly. Central London's basically pretty safe. I'm staying 10 minutes walk away from the Calthorpe Arms, close to Russell Square tube station. I've noticed 2 safe-looking pubs very close to Russell Square: I'll check them out, but I've no idea what you all consider good features of a pub. A decent selection of booze. Preferrably 2 or 3 decent bitters on tap, where decent includes 6x, Landlord's, London Pride, Spitfire (and most other Shepherd Neame beers), pretty much anything by Young's. Some variety of food considered very good. Particularly if it's edible. Disabled access. Enough room for 30-50 perl mongers to lounge about drinking beer, and talking about anything under the sun. A reasonable amount of floor space is always good, as it allows people to circulate. I'm wondering which pubs you're thinking of round Russel Square. There's the Goose opposite the Brunswick Centre. Their upstairs room may be bookable, and their food's reasonable, although I'm not sure about their selection of booze. The Friend at Hand (tucked behind Russel Square tube, next to the Horse Hospital) is a horrid little pub. Um. I can't think of any others round there,
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: However, it is a moderately long walk from the nearest underground station. (it's managed to pick a sweet spot (a bitter spot?) moderately equidistant from three underground stations, so it's certainly an above average distance) But, really it's not *that* far from the tube. Nowhere which is still in Zone 1 is *that* far from a tube station. It is approaching one of the less nice parts of central London, sufficient for one london.pm member's wife to insist that he doesn't go there. I have to take issue with this somewhat. London may not be a land of fairies and elves, but it is for the most part perfectly safe. That may sound trivial - in some ways it is - 1 person out of many, subjective rather than objective. But it's also the first location (that I've been aware of) where this has happened, and I admit that I don't find it a particularly pleasant walk late at night down Gray's Inn Road. In which case, may I suggest Oxford St or Dean St after about 2230. This should, of course, be viewed as entirely subjective, as I can be famously thick-skinned and regularly go drinking/clubbing in Kings Cross on a Friday night. (And I've never had a problem. *touch wood*). Ben
Re: GD::* modules
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, the hatter wrote: And if it's not critical to use GD specifically, have a look at the alternatives. such as image magick. I'd reccomend Imager for most simple graphics stuff now, it handles more colours and installs easier than either PerlMagick or GD. Unfortunately it doesn't have the huge variety of extensions that GD has for charts and stuff but I am working on Pie and Radial charts possibly even some 3d bar and other charts later. regards, A. -- Aaron J Trevena - Perl Hacker, Kung Fu Geek, Internet Consultant AutoDia --- Automatic UML and HTML Specifications from Perl, C++ and Any Datasource with a Handler. http://droogs.org/autodia
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri 18 Oct, Nicholas Clark wrote: and I admit that I don't find it a particularly pleasant walk late at night down Gray's Inn Road. (Unlike walking late at night along High Holborn, Kingsway, The Strand, or any of the other wider, well lit and busier roads) But if you are going towards Holborn, it is only about 150 yards from Lambs Conduit Street, which runs parallel to Gray's Inn Road and should be safe enough (and passes the Lamb, which also has a function room and seems much quieter now than it did some years ago). Roger -- Roger Horne http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:29:25AM +0100, Simon Batistoni wrote: On 18/10/02 10:46 +0100, Natalie S. Ford wrote: Also, if you say it is in a slightly dodgy area, I am even less inclined to try to come along... I have to take issue with this rubbish about it being a dodgy area (I know you're only repeating what other people have said, Nat). (snip) /me is relieved and apologises for a one-line reply, althought she is not sure what people have against one line replies - i need to reply but have little to say... ;-) -- Natalie S. Ford . [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.natalie.ourshack.org .. http://natalief.livejournal.com
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:30:55AM +0100, Marty Pauley wrote: OK, those are good features to add to my search criteria. Ah. kake already had them on her search criteia as pub search minion. Maybe the search criteria need to go on the website somewhere? Maybe they are already there? ;-) -- Natalie S. Ford . [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.natalie.ourshack.org .. http://natalief.livejournal.com
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:43:29AM +0100, Simon Batistoni wrote: (snipped criteria) I just had another thought - not only may these criteria be on the website, they are bound to be in the mailinglist archives somewhere, and that *is* linked from the website. Another criteria is that there be no background music, IIRC... -- Natalie S. Ford . [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.natalie.ourshack.org .. http://natalief.livejournal.com
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri Oct 18 11:43:29 2002, Simon Batistoni wrote: No, as I just ranted. Bloomsbury is lovely. Right up around King's Cross (the two or three streets immediately surrounding the station) it does get dodgy. You will see very ill-looking hookers and people dealing drugs openly. OK. dodgy isn't as bad as I thought. The hookers and dealers probably think I'm dodgy. I'm wondering which pubs you're thinking of round Russel Square. There's the Goose opposite the Brunswick Centre. Their upstairs room may be bookable, and their food's reasonable, although I'm not sure about their selection of booze. That was the first one. I'll call in tonight and make a list. Um. I can't think of any others round there, There was an Irish pub across the street from the Goose... -- Marty
ADSL again
This really should be made an FAQ but ... I want to get ADSL. I've pretty much decided on Nildram, specifically Home 500 Lite : http://www.getadsl.co.uk/services_home.htm The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off charge and then 8 quid a month? http://www.getadsl.co.uk/services_options.htm or should I buy my own (they seem to be about 70 quid for cheap one looking at Dabs) and which one should I go for? Simon -- : feel the banana karma
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:09:18PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: I want to get ADSL. The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off charge and then 8 quid a month? Wires only. I have yet to be convinced that anyone reading this list would be better off with a managed router. I take some convincing that *anyone* can't handle a wires-only connection. Even my adequate-for-me Dlink was insanely easy to set up. I'll even come round and help you set up wires-only in the alternate universe where it gives you any problems. Ben
Re: ADSL again
On 18/10/02 3:18 pm, Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:09:18PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: I want to get ADSL. The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off charge and then 8 quid a month? Wires only. I have yet to be convinced that anyone reading this list would be better off with a managed router. I take some convincing that *anyone* can't handle a wires-only connection. Even my adequate-for-me Dlink was insanely easy to set up. I'll even come round and help you set up wires-only in the alternate universe where it gives you any problems. Ben I would agree with Ben, don't get the frog and don't go usb. Prices on ethernet modem/routers have dropped through the floor. The single port Dlink I bought in January for 250quid is now down below 100quid. There really are a piece of piss to set-up and if you decide to change suppliers you just reconfigure your kit. Just my 2p worth. Neil. -- Neil Ford neil[at]smudgypixels[dot]net
Re: ADSL again
This really should be made an FAQ but ... I want to get ADSL. I've pretty much decided on Nildram, specifically Home 500 Lite : http://www.getadsl.co.uk/services_home.htm The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off charge and then 8 quid a month? http://www.getadsl.co.uk/services_options.htm or should I buy my own (they seem to be about 70 quid for cheap one looking at Dabs) and which one should I go for? Simon I'm just getting the wires only service from freedom2surf. www.f2s.co.uk Was recommended by a number of people here at work. It gets installed today so can't comment so far on anything other than the ordering process which was really easy. Also purchased d-link 504 adsl router which I've used in a few other installations of adsl and found it reliable and easy to configure. matt
Re: ADSL again
Simon Wistow sent the following bits through the ether: I want to get ADSL. I've pretty much decided on Nildram, specifically Home 500 Lite : I have this with a nice D-Link 504 4-port ADSL Router in my flat and am setting up the same thing at parent's as it's so good and just works. I highly recommend this. Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ scribot.http://www.scribot.com/ ... I want to be an assembler when I grow up?
Re: Next Thursday; was: small hairy Belfast.pm geek...
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:02:45PM +0100, Marty Pauley wrote: Um. I can't think of any others round there, There was an Irish pub across the street from the Goose... The one in the hotel? Bleh. Having spent a month in that hotel, I would reccomend against the pub. But I doubt I'll make a meeting anytime soon, so do as you will. -- mike Love will get you like a case of anthrax And that's something that I don't want to catch
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:25:06PM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote: Simon Wistow sent the following bits through the ether: I want to get ADSL. I've pretty much decided on Nildram, specifically Home 500 Lite : I have this with a nice D-Link 504 4-port ADSL Router in my flat and am setting up the same thing at parent's as it's so good and just works. I highly recommend this. The Dlink is a piece of piss to set up. Be aware, however, that it isn't the best router in the world, and not everyone likes it. It's perfectly adequate for my needs, however. Ben
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:46:17PM +0100, Ben wrote: The Dlink is a piece of piss to set up. Be aware, however, that it isn't the best router in the world, and not everyone likes it. It's perfectly adequate for my needs, however. Something I've noticed on several DSL router/hub combination boxes is that they're often even worse collision generators than normal hubs. Take a single drop off the DSL router, run it through your firewall and distribute it inside - works for me. Roger
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:50:04PM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:46:17PM +0100, Ben wrote: The Dlink is a piece of piss to set up. Be aware, however, that it isn't the best router in the world, and not everyone likes it. It's perfectly adequate for my needs, however. Something I've noticed on several DSL router/hub combination boxes is that they're often even worse collision generators than normal hubs. Take a single drop off the DSL router, run it through your firewall and distribute it inside - works for me. So your advice for anyone contemplating ADSL would be an architecture something like BT | | DSL router/hub (such as Dlink) | Firewall box (eg cheap x86 running some sort of BSD or Linux) | Hub / | \ Stuff If the firewall box has (or can be fitted with) several internal interfaces, is it a viable, cheap and secure system to also use it as a hub? Nicholas Clark
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:56:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: So your advice for anyone contemplating ADSL would be an architecture something like BT | | DSL router/hub (such as Dlink) | Firewall box (eg cheap x86 running some sort of BSD or Linux) | Hub / | \ Stuff Yes, though I'd use a switch rather than a hub internally. If the firewall box has (or can be fitted with) several internal interfaces, is it a viable, cheap and secure system to also use it as a hub? Hmm. Not really. A single 100Mbit NIC is, what, 15-20 quid these days? An 8-port 100Mbit switch is 60ish quid. Also, you'll probably need to use crossover cables when going NIC-NIC, which is a pain. Where I do use multiple internal interfaces is for separate security zones - public servers running behind my DSL connection can't see the private network. Roger
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:56:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: So your advice for anyone contemplating ADSL would be an architecture something like BT | | DSL router/hub (such as Dlink) | Firewall box (eg cheap x86 running some sort of BSD or Linux) | Hub / | \ Stuff If the firewall box has (or can be fitted with) several internal interfaces, is it a viable, cheap and secure system to also use it as a hub? This could be quite a good idea for, eg, people who wanted to provide open wireless access - the wireless access device traffic can then be kept separate from the internal networks. This probably comes under the heading of 'Well, duh', but it's Friday afternoon, so I think I'm allowed some latitude. Ben
Re: RFC: Acme::Whatif
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 05:11:09PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: Acme::Whatif ... I take it that the inability to undo changes to disk files etc means that you can't undo changes to data structures tied to those files. Or is perl clever enough to Do The Right Thing in that case? Hmmm ... if you've opened a tied dbm O_RDWR, I wonder just how horribly fucked up the indexes will become if you die in the whatif block. -- David Cantrell | Benevolent Dictator | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Willing to accept a lower economic standard of living in return for higher quality of life
RE: ADSL again
So your advice for anyone contemplating ADSL would be an architecture something like BT | | DSL router/hub (such as Dlink) | Firewall box (eg cheap x86 running some sort of BSD or Linux) | Hub / | \ Stuff Paul Civati has some good documentation about this sort of thing. It's specifically aimed at people using Blueyonder's cable modems, but the principles behind it are exactly the same. http://www.xciv.org/byhsi/ If the firewall box has (or can be fitted with) several internal interfaces, is it a viable, cheap and secure system to also use it as a hub? Yes. Although by the time you've bought a couple of decent network cards for the firewall box you've probably spent about the same amount as you would for a 6 or 8 port netgear hub (and I doubt you'll get 6 or 8 ports in the firewall box without going to quad-ethernet cards, which would probably be very sillytm). N PS: Unless you wanted to provide public wireless access, or something. At which point you'd definitely want to do that through an additional NIC on the firewall box. -- 11 2 3 4 5 6 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 -- The 75 column-ometer Contributing to the heat death Global Messaging, 120 Cheapside, x83331 of the universe since 1973.
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:56:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark said: stuff my plan is exactly that. The box will be a Smoothwall box with two network cards and a wireless card in it for, red, green and orange zones respectively. Simon
Re: ADSL again
Have you had a look at http://www.adslguide.org.uk lots of useful stuff and opinions there I want to get ADSL. I've pretty much decided on Nildram, specifically Home 500 Lite : Glyn
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Simon Wistow wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:56:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark said: stuff my plan is exactly that. The box will be a Smoothwall box with two network cards and a wireless card in it for, red, green and orange zones respectively. Beware that Smoothwall doesn't support wireless cards directly, you'll need an ethernet nic and an access point. As the smoothwall lists are not archived, I'll repeat the official line below, in Richard's own inimitable style... Simon. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:53:05 + (GMT) From: Richard Morrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [gpl] Wireless Network PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Pre posting please read the website GPL Smoothie WILL NOT support Wireless EVER CorpServ SmoothWall WILL have a wireless module and management interface in weeks time. Richard
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:45:36PM +0100, Michael Styer wrote: On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Roger Burton West wrote: Something I've noticed on several DSL router/hub combination boxes is that they're often even worse collision generators than normal hubs. Does that (i.e., decreased performance) apply a fortiori to DSL router/switch/firewall, or router/switch/wireless-access-point/firewall combination boxes? I don't have enough data to say. I suspect that this is a side-effect of the DSL box being built down to a price - cheap network hardware won't be noticed by most users anyway, especially if they haven't had a hub before (and if they had why would they want a built-in one?). even an old 286 or 386 is going to cost a few quid Not necessarily. )it looks like it might be cheaper, and certainly more convenient, just to buy one thing that does it all. If you don't mind not knowing about the innards of it, and having to wait for a manufacturer's bug-fix... it's the usual open-source vs commercial software argument. Certainly my kit (Netgear 8-port switch, P166 firewall running Linux, Fujitsu DSL router/hub supplied by BT 'cos they didn't do wires-only in those days) is cheaper than a single-box solution for the same capability would have been: but that capability includes N:N and N:1 NAT (on different parts of the same network), 8 ports fully switched (I'm not counting the other internal network since most of that was free kit), and so on. Roger
Re: ADSL again
On 18/10/02 4:14 pm, Simon Wistow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:56:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark said: stuff my plan is exactly that. The box will be a Smoothwall box with two network cards and a wireless card in it for, red, green and orange zones respectively. Please, please use IPCop instead. Your life will be an awful lot simpler, especially if you ever need any help with it :-) Neil. (speaking from bitter experience) -- Neil Ford neil[at]smudgypixels[dot]net
Re: ADSL again
Neil Ford wrote: On 18/10/02 4:14 pm, Simon Wistow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:56:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark said: stuff my plan is exactly that. The box will be a Smoothwall box with two network cards and a wireless card in it for, red, green and orange zones respectively. Please, please use IPCop instead. Your life will be an awful lot simpler, especially if you ever need any help with it :-) I use ipcop (http://www.ipcop.org) and it works well. I have it running on an old p90 box. Personally I would stay away from SmoothWall. Will.
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:18:55PM +0100, Ben wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:09:18PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off charge and then 8 quid a month? Wires only. I have yet to be convinced that anyone reading this list would be better off with a managed router. I am happy with a managed router. It means that when it breaks, I phone and they fix. Or they supply a new one. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david It doesn't matter to me if someone else's computer is faster because I know my system could smash theirs flat if it fell over on it. -- (with apologies to Brian Chase)
Re: ADSL again
At 18/10/2002 17:41 [], David Cantrell wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:18:55PM +0100, Ben wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:09:18PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off charge and then 8 quid a month? Wires only. I have yet to be convinced that anyone reading this list would be better off with a managed router. I am happy with a managed router. It means that when it breaks, I phone and they fix. Or they supply a new one. Right, but I bet you don't have one of the evil USB jobbies. The ethernet router is merely sucky, and runs very hot. However, to get the ethernet router you need to sign up for a business service, costing ~3x as much. AFAIK anyway. For anybody considering a home (read: USB/wires only) service, the wires-only with a half-decent ethernet router is their best bet. /joel -- S. Joel Bernstein :: joel at fysh dot org :: t: 020 8458 2323 Nobody is going to claim that Perl 6's OO is bolted on. Well, except maybe for certain Slashdotters who don't know the difference between rational discussion and cheerleading... -- Larry Wall
Re: ADSL again
my plan is exactly that. The box will be a Smoothwall box with two network cards and a wireless card in it for, red, green and orange zones respectively. Please, please use IPCop instead. Your life will be an awful lot simpler, especially if you ever need any help with it :-) I use ipcop (http://www.ipcop.org) and it works well. I have it running on an old p90 box. Personally I would stay away from SmoothWall. Er, yeah, I wouldn't recommend Smoothwall to anyone any more. I personally use the floppy based LRP. It doesn't have all the drivers built in for things like wireless, but I can get away with a PC that I found in the loft when I moved in. It doesn't even use a hard disk or CD drive - thus saving a bit more dosh. If anyone persuades me to go wireless then I'd probably move to IPCop too. Alex Openweb Analysts Ltd, London. Software For Complex Websites http://www.OWAL.co.uk/ Open Source Software Companies please register here http://www.OWAL.co.uk/oss_support/
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:49:53PM +0100, S. Joel Bernstein wrote: At 18/10/2002 17:41 [], David Cantrell wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:18:55PM +0100, Ben wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:09:18PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off charge and then 8 quid a month? Wires only. I have yet to be convinced that anyone reading this list would be better off with a managed router. I am happy with a managed router. It means that when it breaks, I phone and they fix. Or they supply a new one. Right, but I bet you don't have one of the evil USB jobbies. Yes of course. USB is bad and wrong for networking. The ethernet router is merely sucky, and runs very hot. Yep, it runs hot - so hot that I've burnt two of them to death. Both times BT replaced it the next working day. I haven't noticed any sucktitude apart from that. However, to get the ethernet router you need to sign up for a business service, costing ~3x as much. Yep. When I got DSL, there was no wires-only option, a router was ALWAYS supplied. I have no Windows box to plug the USB one in to and had no Macs at the time. I refuse to waste time configuring the badly broken USB interfaces in Linux, and anyway, see above about USB being wrong. It was also impossible (at the time, IIRC, YMMV, DMAF, GCHQ) to get a range of static, routeable IPs on anything other than the business service. I might be wrong but I don't care. For anybody considering a home (read: USB/wires only) service, the wires-only with a half-decent ethernet router is their best bet. You mean for anybody considering a home service and whose requirements are the same as mine :-) -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david For every vengeance, there is an equal and opposite revengeance. -- Cartoon Law X
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:41:25PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:18:55PM +0100, Ben wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:09:18PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: The question is do I go for a wires only option and buy my own ADSL modem or do i go for Nildram's managed USB frog at a 25 quid one off charge and then 8 quid a month? Wires only. I have yet to be convinced that anyone reading this list would be better off with a managed router. I am happy with a managed router. It means that when it breaks, I phone and they fix. Or they supply a new one. This is a vary good point. I have a managed router. I also travel a lot and one time while I was abroad it broke. My wife called them and they came and fixed it and I was able to get at my machine again. Sometimes the exta cost is worth it. Graham.
Re: ADSL again
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 Oct 2002 16:22:54 > Neil Ford wrote: > > On 18/10/02 4:14 pm, "Simon Wistow" wrote: > > > > > >>On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:56:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark said: > >> > >>>stuff > >> > >>my plan is exactly that. The box will be a Smoothwall box with two > >>network cards and a wireless card in it for, red, green and orange zones > >>respectively. > >> > > > > Please, please use IPCop instead. Your life will be an awful lot simpler, > > especially if you ever need any help with it :-) > I use ipcop (http://www.ipcop.org) and it works well. I have it running on an > old p90 box. Personally I would stay away from SmoothWall. > Will. for fun, i'm creating my own system from scratch. ultimate aim is to run it from flash memory :) atm, it's unfortunately running on nt4. that's because that got installed first, and would be hassle to change it. Hardware is a via eden system, so when finished won't be _any_ fans in the entire system. Totally silent. Yoda
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 06:06:07PM +, belkajm wrote: Hardware is a via eden system, so when finished won't be _any_ fans in the entire system. Totally silent. Sounds interesting. Got any links? I'm on the lookout for silent PCs in sane form-factors. -- Lord Protector David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Norton Wipe Info uses hexadecimal values to wipe files. This provides more security than wiping with decimal values. -- from the manual of Norton Systemworks 2002, pg 160
Re: ADSL again
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 Oct 2002 18:11:42 > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 06:06:07PM +, belkajm wrote: > > Hardware is a via eden system, so when finished won't be _any_ fans in the entire system. Totally silent. > Sounds interesting. Got any links? I'm on the lookout for silent PCs in > sane form-factors. http://www.mini-itx.com/ is the best place to look. I got most of my stuff from ebuyer, with the flash->ide adaptor from linITX. put in a pci adsl card. Total price was around £250 > -- > Lord Protector David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david > " Norton Wipe Info uses hexadecimal values to wipe files. This > provides more security than wiping with decimal values. " > -- from the manual of Norton Systemworks 2002, pg 160
Re: *****SPAM***** RFC: Acme::Whatif
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:22:23AM +0100, Steve Keay wrote: On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 05:11:09PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: Have you? HAVE YOU? snip Not only that but Acme::Whatif, for a limited time only, provides you Wow, first spamassasin false positive from london.pm: Consider an upgrade! X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.6 required=5.0 tests=KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,LIMITED_TIME_ONLY,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE, SPAM_PHRASE_05_08,TO_LOCALPART_EQ_REAL,USER_AGENT, USER_AGENT_MUTT version=2.41 And 2.41's not even the most up-to-date... Paul -- Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/ What is the time frame in which Orion will reach englightenment? Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building. -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 06:22:51PM +, belkajm wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_b31f983ea3f4979760d29a7abe2f75bad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Please don't. -- marlin eater
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:50:05PM +, the hatter wrote: You've found www.quietpc.com already, right ? Not for complete (but nasty cases) systems, but for replacing those noisy bits in any old piece of junk ATX box. As I've said before when people have recommended I go to them - quiet does not equal silent. I want silent. -- David Cantrell | Member of the Brute Squad | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
Re: ADSL again
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:45:36PM +0100, Michael Styer wrote: For instance, the Draytek Vigor 2600 or 2600We, which I've seen advertised on www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk? I've used Vigors (2200) somewhat and they're a very nice piece of kit. I imagine the 2600 is equally well made. As someone who's used both appliances and constructed various homebrew *nix routers, I personally can no longer see the appeal these days of faffing with a piece of crappy old hardware, and having it whining and sucking up power day in day out versus a black-box that Just Works(TM). YMMV.. Paul -- Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/ What is red? It's my favorite thing in the whole world! -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
