OT: File Server at home
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: File Server at home
i was close... i hate linux personally... bunch of free crap duct-taped
together. Give me solaris, hp-ux or even AIX any day.
Sleestak wrote:
> Jim85CJ wrote:
>
>
>>FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
>>System V kernel.
>
>
>
> Hmmm, that's not quite right.
>
> FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
> http://www.freebsd.org/
>
> Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
> the early 90s.
>
>
together. Give me solaris, hp-ux or even AIX any day.
Sleestak wrote:
> Jim85CJ wrote:
>
>
>>FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
>>System V kernel.
>
>
>
> Hmmm, that's not quite right.
>
> FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
> http://www.freebsd.org/
>
> Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
> the early 90s.
>
>
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: File Server at home
Jim85CJ wrote:
> FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
> System V kernel.
Hmmm, that's not quite right.
FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
http://www.freebsd.org/
Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
the early 90s.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
> System V kernel.
Hmmm, that's not quite right.
FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
http://www.freebsd.org/
Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
the early 90s.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: File Server at home
Jim85CJ wrote:
> FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
> System V kernel.
Hmmm, that's not quite right.
FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
http://www.freebsd.org/
Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
the early 90s.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
> System V kernel.
Hmmm, that's not quite right.
FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
http://www.freebsd.org/
Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
the early 90s.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: File Server at home
Jim85CJ wrote:
> FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
> System V kernel.
Hmmm, that's not quite right.
FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
http://www.freebsd.org/
Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
the early 90s.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
> System V kernel.
Hmmm, that's not quite right.
FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
http://www.freebsd.org/
Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
the early 90s.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: File Server at home
Jim85CJ wrote:
> FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
> System V kernel.
Hmmm, that's not quite right.
FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
http://www.freebsd.org/
Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
the early 90s.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> FreeBSD is "linux" based on the Berkley kernel; Redhat is based on the
> System V kernel.
Hmmm, that's not quite right.
FreeBSD is indeed based on a version of the Berkeley kernel -- BSDLite.
http://www.freebsd.org/
Redhat is based on the Linux kernel which was developed by Linus Torvalds in
the early 90s.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: File Server at home
Lon wrote:
> HomeBrewer proclaimed:
>
>>>Most ISPs frown on running servers and several actually block port 80
>>
>> HTTP.
>>
>>>So I'd say FTP would be the better option. That and at least on *** they
>>
>> allow
>>
>>>FTP providing it's not set up for anonymous access.
>>>
>>>XP pro comes with a basic FTP service. Read up on any vulerabilites and
>>
>> make
>>
>>>sure that box is secure because as soon as you put it up joe-hacker is
>>
>> going
>>
>>>to try connecting.
>>>
>>>Linky > http://www.sofotex.com/download/FTP_Software/
>>
>>
>>
>> I know how to use FTP programs to get files and look at other servers,
>> but I tried to set one up as a host and I could never connect to it ( I
>> think the software was FTPserver or something like that). I think it was
>> because it was behind my router. I also tried to load linux on my old
>> machine - but linux proved to be too much of a learning curve. I don't
>> need a server that bad.
>>
>> Basically I would just like to have the computer sitting there hosting
>> files for me. I think I have to mess with my router settings and have it
>> do some of the work. Or maybe I can't even have a ftp server behind a
>> router, I don't know.
>>
> Rather than use FTP or worse, NetBIOS, you might want to use secure
> socket layer with secure shell and secure copy. That way you could
> set a key [for each partner] in each machine and allow only those
> systems where the key has been set to connect.
>
> Most FTP's are too easy to crack.
Secure ftp is the ticket; it lets you run ftp through a secure tunnel -- SSH
-- and its just as easy to access and use as a standard ftp server.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> HomeBrewer proclaimed:
>
>>>Most ISPs frown on running servers and several actually block port 80
>>
>> HTTP.
>>
>>>So I'd say FTP would be the better option. That and at least on *** they
>>
>> allow
>>
>>>FTP providing it's not set up for anonymous access.
>>>
>>>XP pro comes with a basic FTP service. Read up on any vulerabilites and
>>
>> make
>>
>>>sure that box is secure because as soon as you put it up joe-hacker is
>>
>> going
>>
>>>to try connecting.
>>>
>>>Linky > http://www.sofotex.com/download/FTP_Software/
>>
>>
>>
>> I know how to use FTP programs to get files and look at other servers,
>> but I tried to set one up as a host and I could never connect to it ( I
>> think the software was FTPserver or something like that). I think it was
>> because it was behind my router. I also tried to load linux on my old
>> machine - but linux proved to be too much of a learning curve. I don't
>> need a server that bad.
>>
>> Basically I would just like to have the computer sitting there hosting
>> files for me. I think I have to mess with my router settings and have it
>> do some of the work. Or maybe I can't even have a ftp server behind a
>> router, I don't know.
>>
> Rather than use FTP or worse, NetBIOS, you might want to use secure
> socket layer with secure shell and secure copy. That way you could
> set a key [for each partner] in each machine and allow only those
> systems where the key has been set to connect.
>
> Most FTP's are too easy to crack.
Secure ftp is the ticket; it lets you run ftp through a secure tunnel -- SSH
-- and its just as easy to access and use as a standard ftp server.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: File Server at home
Lon wrote:
> HomeBrewer proclaimed:
>
>>>Most ISPs frown on running servers and several actually block port 80
>>
>> HTTP.
>>
>>>So I'd say FTP would be the better option. That and at least on *** they
>>
>> allow
>>
>>>FTP providing it's not set up for anonymous access.
>>>
>>>XP pro comes with a basic FTP service. Read up on any vulerabilites and
>>
>> make
>>
>>>sure that box is secure because as soon as you put it up joe-hacker is
>>
>> going
>>
>>>to try connecting.
>>>
>>>Linky > http://www.sofotex.com/download/FTP_Software/
>>
>>
>>
>> I know how to use FTP programs to get files and look at other servers,
>> but I tried to set one up as a host and I could never connect to it ( I
>> think the software was FTPserver or something like that). I think it was
>> because it was behind my router. I also tried to load linux on my old
>> machine - but linux proved to be too much of a learning curve. I don't
>> need a server that bad.
>>
>> Basically I would just like to have the computer sitting there hosting
>> files for me. I think I have to mess with my router settings and have it
>> do some of the work. Or maybe I can't even have a ftp server behind a
>> router, I don't know.
>>
> Rather than use FTP or worse, NetBIOS, you might want to use secure
> socket layer with secure shell and secure copy. That way you could
> set a key [for each partner] in each machine and allow only those
> systems where the key has been set to connect.
>
> Most FTP's are too easy to crack.
Secure ftp is the ticket; it lets you run ftp through a secure tunnel -- SSH
-- and its just as easy to access and use as a standard ftp server.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> HomeBrewer proclaimed:
>
>>>Most ISPs frown on running servers and several actually block port 80
>>
>> HTTP.
>>
>>>So I'd say FTP would be the better option. That and at least on *** they
>>
>> allow
>>
>>>FTP providing it's not set up for anonymous access.
>>>
>>>XP pro comes with a basic FTP service. Read up on any vulerabilites and
>>
>> make
>>
>>>sure that box is secure because as soon as you put it up joe-hacker is
>>
>> going
>>
>>>to try connecting.
>>>
>>>Linky > http://www.sofotex.com/download/FTP_Software/
>>
>>
>>
>> I know how to use FTP programs to get files and look at other servers,
>> but I tried to set one up as a host and I could never connect to it ( I
>> think the software was FTPserver or something like that). I think it was
>> because it was behind my router. I also tried to load linux on my old
>> machine - but linux proved to be too much of a learning curve. I don't
>> need a server that bad.
>>
>> Basically I would just like to have the computer sitting there hosting
>> files for me. I think I have to mess with my router settings and have it
>> do some of the work. Or maybe I can't even have a ftp server behind a
>> router, I don't know.
>>
> Rather than use FTP or worse, NetBIOS, you might want to use secure
> socket layer with secure shell and secure copy. That way you could
> set a key [for each partner] in each machine and allow only those
> systems where the key has been set to connect.
>
> Most FTP's are too easy to crack.
Secure ftp is the ticket; it lets you run ftp through a secure tunnel -- SSH
-- and its just as easy to access and use as a standard ftp server.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: File Server at home
Lon wrote:
> HomeBrewer proclaimed:
>
>>>Most ISPs frown on running servers and several actually block port 80
>>
>> HTTP.
>>
>>>So I'd say FTP would be the better option. That and at least on *** they
>>
>> allow
>>
>>>FTP providing it's not set up for anonymous access.
>>>
>>>XP pro comes with a basic FTP service. Read up on any vulerabilites and
>>
>> make
>>
>>>sure that box is secure because as soon as you put it up joe-hacker is
>>
>> going
>>
>>>to try connecting.
>>>
>>>Linky > http://www.sofotex.com/download/FTP_Software/
>>
>>
>>
>> I know how to use FTP programs to get files and look at other servers,
>> but I tried to set one up as a host and I could never connect to it ( I
>> think the software was FTPserver or something like that). I think it was
>> because it was behind my router. I also tried to load linux on my old
>> machine - but linux proved to be too much of a learning curve. I don't
>> need a server that bad.
>>
>> Basically I would just like to have the computer sitting there hosting
>> files for me. I think I have to mess with my router settings and have it
>> do some of the work. Or maybe I can't even have a ftp server behind a
>> router, I don't know.
>>
> Rather than use FTP or worse, NetBIOS, you might want to use secure
> socket layer with secure shell and secure copy. That way you could
> set a key [for each partner] in each machine and allow only those
> systems where the key has been set to connect.
>
> Most FTP's are too easy to crack.
Secure ftp is the ticket; it lets you run ftp through a secure tunnel -- SSH
-- and its just as easy to access and use as a standard ftp server.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> HomeBrewer proclaimed:
>
>>>Most ISPs frown on running servers and several actually block port 80
>>
>> HTTP.
>>
>>>So I'd say FTP would be the better option. That and at least on *** they
>>
>> allow
>>
>>>FTP providing it's not set up for anonymous access.
>>>
>>>XP pro comes with a basic FTP service. Read up on any vulerabilites and
>>
>> make
>>
>>>sure that box is secure because as soon as you put it up joe-hacker is
>>
>> going
>>
>>>to try connecting.
>>>
>>>Linky > http://www.sofotex.com/download/FTP_Software/
>>
>>
>>
>> I know how to use FTP programs to get files and look at other servers,
>> but I tried to set one up as a host and I could never connect to it ( I
>> think the software was FTPserver or something like that). I think it was
>> because it was behind my router. I also tried to load linux on my old
>> machine - but linux proved to be too much of a learning curve. I don't
>> need a server that bad.
>>
>> Basically I would just like to have the computer sitting there hosting
>> files for me. I think I have to mess with my router settings and have it
>> do some of the work. Or maybe I can't even have a ftp server behind a
>> router, I don't know.
>>
> Rather than use FTP or worse, NetBIOS, you might want to use secure
> socket layer with secure shell and secure copy. That way you could
> set a key [for each partner] in each machine and allow only those
> systems where the key has been set to connect.
>
> Most FTP's are too easy to crack.
Secure ftp is the ticket; it lets you run ftp through a secure tunnel -- SSH
-- and its just as easy to access and use as a standard ftp server.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: File Server at home
Lon wrote:
> HomeBrewer proclaimed:
>
>>>Most ISPs frown on running servers and several actually block port 80
>>
>> HTTP.
>>
>>>So I'd say FTP would be the better option. That and at least on *** they
>>
>> allow
>>
>>>FTP providing it's not set up for anonymous access.
>>>
>>>XP pro comes with a basic FTP service. Read up on any vulerabilites and
>>
>> make
>>
>>>sure that box is secure because as soon as you put it up joe-hacker is
>>
>> going
>>
>>>to try connecting.
>>>
>>>Linky > http://www.sofotex.com/download/FTP_Software/
>>
>>
>>
>> I know how to use FTP programs to get files and look at other servers,
>> but I tried to set one up as a host and I could never connect to it ( I
>> think the software was FTPserver or something like that). I think it was
>> because it was behind my router. I also tried to load linux on my old
>> machine - but linux proved to be too much of a learning curve. I don't
>> need a server that bad.
>>
>> Basically I would just like to have the computer sitting there hosting
>> files for me. I think I have to mess with my router settings and have it
>> do some of the work. Or maybe I can't even have a ftp server behind a
>> router, I don't know.
>>
> Rather than use FTP or worse, NetBIOS, you might want to use secure
> socket layer with secure shell and secure copy. That way you could
> set a key [for each partner] in each machine and allow only those
> systems where the key has been set to connect.
>
> Most FTP's are too easy to crack.
Secure ftp is the ticket; it lets you run ftp through a secure tunnel -- SSH
-- and its just as easy to access and use as a standard ftp server.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> HomeBrewer proclaimed:
>
>>>Most ISPs frown on running servers and several actually block port 80
>>
>> HTTP.
>>
>>>So I'd say FTP would be the better option. That and at least on *** they
>>
>> allow
>>
>>>FTP providing it's not set up for anonymous access.
>>>
>>>XP pro comes with a basic FTP service. Read up on any vulerabilites and
>>
>> make
>>
>>>sure that box is secure because as soon as you put it up joe-hacker is
>>
>> going
>>
>>>to try connecting.
>>>
>>>Linky > http://www.sofotex.com/download/FTP_Software/
>>
>>
>>
>> I know how to use FTP programs to get files and look at other servers,
>> but I tried to set one up as a host and I could never connect to it ( I
>> think the software was FTPserver or something like that). I think it was
>> because it was behind my router. I also tried to load linux on my old
>> machine - but linux proved to be too much of a learning curve. I don't
>> need a server that bad.
>>
>> Basically I would just like to have the computer sitting there hosting
>> files for me. I think I have to mess with my router settings and have it
>> do some of the work. Or maybe I can't even have a ftp server behind a
>> router, I don't know.
>>
> Rather than use FTP or worse, NetBIOS, you might want to use secure
> socket layer with secure shell and secure copy. That way you could
> set a key [for each partner] in each machine and allow only those
> systems where the key has been set to connect.
>
> Most FTP's are too easy to crack.
Secure ftp is the ticket; it lets you run ftp through a secure tunnel -- SSH
-- and its just as easy to access and use as a standard ftp server.
--
Say NO! To TCPA! http://www.againsttcpa.com
What's Microsoft up to: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: File Server at home
"Linux is certainly not ducked taped togrther"
I admit it is much better than it was in the early 90s but it still is
nowhere near solaris/aix/hp-ux. As for Linux vs Windows? No
comparison, Linux kicks windows ***; that's not saying much.
Sleestak wrote:
> Jim85CJ wrote:
>
>
>>i was close... i hate linux personally... bunch of free crap duct-taped
>>together. Give me solaris, hp-ux or even AIX any day.
>>
>>Sleestak wrote:
>>
>
>
> Linux is certainly not ducked taped togrther. If you want to see ducked
> taped do a little research on windows.
>
>
> But I believe that FreeBSD, Open BSD, NetBSD are more elegant than Linux.
>
> BTW, you are aware that Google is running on a beowulfed Linux System.
>
I admit it is much better than it was in the early 90s but it still is
nowhere near solaris/aix/hp-ux. As for Linux vs Windows? No
comparison, Linux kicks windows ***; that's not saying much.
Sleestak wrote:
> Jim85CJ wrote:
>
>
>>i was close... i hate linux personally... bunch of free crap duct-taped
>>together. Give me solaris, hp-ux or even AIX any day.
>>
>>Sleestak wrote:
>>
>
>
> Linux is certainly not ducked taped togrther. If you want to see ducked
> taped do a little research on windows.
>
>
> But I believe that FreeBSD, Open BSD, NetBSD are more elegant than Linux.
>
> BTW, you are aware that Google is running on a beowulfed Linux System.
>