A friend of mine is running Win2K Server. Currently, he's experimenting with Microsoft Streaming Technology.
This stream is of AVS Winamp scripts he's wrote. He wants to see how his server handles being slashdotted. I warned him that he probably didn't want the masses looking at his site, but he asked for it. So, if you have Mediaplayer, and want to see it...
Here's the link:
While I understand the legal issues involved... it still irks me that reading something can get you into trouble. I mean - is it a crime to read? I'll be sure to bring a pair of blinders with me everywhere I go now... I wouldn't want to accidently read something I shouldn't.
Does anyone with @home service actually adhere to the TOS? And for people that do not - have you ever received a notice from @home explaining that what you're doing is in violation of their TOS.
Personally, I know I'm in violation of probably their entire TOS - including blocking all attempts by their "authorized-scan.security.home.net" machines to scan any of my machines.
At anyrate, I'm just curious about who actually cares what their TOS says. Because - if you actually followed the agreement to the letter - about the only thing you could do with your @home service is browse the web (if that). Who needs @home for that? I could browse the web just fine via my dialup + squid + junkbuster + etc.
I ordered @home for the speed, the static IP addresses, and the "stability" of a constant "always on" internet connection.
And you know what - I'll be damned if I'm going to obey the TOS. I don't serve out 'warez' or cause a great bandwidth strain on their network. But damnit - I want flexability.
So, in the great words of the "Butcher boy" - "fish! fuck off!"
!rant! I fail to understand why people get so rude and sarcastic here when someone asks a valid question. !rant!
Anyway, I've been going through the samething here at work. We're software developers with not alot of extra money to be throwing around at every whizbang VPN hardware solution that exists. And yes, there's plenty of them.
Regardless, we need some type of VPN solution as we have folks that a) don't work in the office, or b) work primarily at home.
So, what do we do? it's simple. We use the built-in VPN solution that ships with NT. Mock me if you will, but it works. It's not secure, no - you're right, but some security is better than no security.
When I say, "it works" - I mean.. it works. The off-site employees plugin in the appropriate information into dialup networking and when they connect to the office - they connect. They see our machines, and we see their machines. It's slow, it's crude, but it works.
Now, that doesn't mean we like it, or enjoy using it, but it works. We're currently in the process of eliminating NT from our network in favor of linux solutions. We're doing this on a fairly grand scale. Not only are we removing those machines, but we're removing other things as well - such as Visual Sourcesafe (feh!).
But - now, we've run into the same problem that the poster is inquiring about. What about VPN? Well, no problem..(or so I thought). As one of the few people around actually helping push the NT boxes out of the office and applauding the arrival of the linux boxes, I happily jumped onto the web and started investigating what solutions were available for me. What did I discover? oh - there's plenty of things available - all of them although very noble in their attempts - do not do what we need.. not exactly, anyway.
What do we need? we need simplicity - that's what we need. We need our employees to be able to click the little dialup networking icon, connect to the office, and have it seem like they were here in the office. To be able to see our machines, and for us to see their machines.
Forget about all the other ways it can be done. The fact is - the people that need VPN don't want to waste their time futzing with setting up extra hardware in their house. They want simple.
The only thing that comes close is PoPToP and unfortunately, at this time it doesn't come close enough. I could go into detail why it doesn't come close, but if you subscribe to the mailing list, or try to implement it yourself, you'll see why it's not ready for primetime.
Many people are bitching about the guy wanting something for free and blah, blah. Well, folks - the solution ships free with NT, and it works. When you finally convince the headcheeses to junk the NT solutions and move over to linux (it takes a lot of convincing) you can't come back a day later and say, "oh, btw, we need an extra (insert dollar amount) for this VPN hardware solution." Because you know - they'll just come back and say, "That worked just fine with NT."
So, this has just been alot of babble really. This issue just hits home with me because I've been dealing with it so much. We tried multiple times with PoPToP, but it just wasn't consistent, or reliable in operation.
We found a solution, though. We kept the linux boxes, and just left the NT box around to be the VPN gateway. We'll probably upgrade that machine to Windows 2000 in the near future, though. Windows 2000 has even better VPN built-in.
To the poster, if you don't find anything that works for you, and you can budget a hardware solution, I recommend you look into the same hardware solution we looked at, but cannot afford. It's called, "Intraport." The company was recently acquired by Cisco. Here's a link.
Slashdot Mirror
Epic speech.
Charlton Heston was not the boob so many made
him out to be.
Seeya in the next life, Chuck!
Well, I would think the answer would be obvious...
Republicans have majority control in the Senate, and House. Do you really think they're going to start investigations?
You're right. The difference today, and the reason I'm upset, people in general are upset, and HOPEFULLY, you are upset is:
Independent oversight is currently non-existence. Which is exactly the reason the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) came to be.
The current administration is completely bypassing FISA judges.
Gee, I can only wonder why that would be...
I read every word.
I'm with you, man.
Here's a link to a movie showing the little guy do his stuff.
The Sony Robot that is.
Enjoy!
A friend of mine is running Win2K Server. Currently, he's experimenting with Microsoft Streaming Technology.
This stream is of AVS Winamp scripts he's wrote. He wants to see how his server handles being slashdotted. I warned him that he probably didn't want the masses looking at his site, but he asked for it. So, if you have Mediaplayer, and want to see it...
Here's the link:
While I understand the legal issues involved... it still irks me that reading something can get you into trouble. I mean - is it a crime to read? I'll be sure to bring a pair of blinders with me everywhere I go now... I wouldn't want to accidently read something I shouldn't.
feh!
I guess I don't understand the 'coolness' or even 'useful' applications for wearable 'stuff'
I keep reading about this movement in technology and I try to get inspired/excited about it, but I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Then again - I'm not inspired at all by things such as the "holy palm." Maybe I'm just out of touch with things...
Does anyone with @home service actually adhere to the TOS? And for people that do not - have you ever received a notice from @home explaining that what you're doing is in violation of their TOS.
Personally, I know I'm in violation of probably their entire TOS - including blocking all attempts by their "authorized-scan.security.home.net" machines to scan any of my machines.
At anyrate, I'm just curious about who actually cares what their TOS says. Because - if you actually followed the agreement to the letter - about the only thing you could do with your @home service is browse the web (if that).
Who needs @home for that? I could browse the web just fine via my dialup + squid + junkbuster + etc.
I ordered @home for the speed, the static IP addresses, and the "stability" of a constant "always on" internet connection.
And you know what - I'll be damned if I'm going to obey the TOS. I don't serve out 'warez' or cause a great bandwidth strain on their network. But damnit - I want flexability.So, in the great words of the "Butcher boy" - "fish! fuck off!"
!rant! I fail to understand why people get so rude and sarcastic here when someone asks a valid question. !rant!
Anyway, I've been going through the samething here at work. We're software developers with not alot of extra money to be throwing around at every whizbang VPN hardware solution that exists. And yes, there's plenty of them.
Regardless, we need some type of VPN solution as we have folks that a) don't work in the office, or b) work primarily at home.
So, what do we do? it's simple. We use the built-in VPN solution that ships with NT. Mock me if you will, but it works. It's not secure, no - you're right, but some security is better than no security.
When I say, "it works" - I mean.. it works. The off-site employees plugin in the appropriate information into dialup networking and when they connect to the office - they connect. They see our machines, and we see their machines. It's slow, it's crude, but it works.
Now, that doesn't mean we like it, or enjoy using it, but it works. We're currently in the process of eliminating NT from our network in favor of linux solutions. We're doing this on a fairly grand scale. Not only are we removing those machines, but we're removing other things as well - such as Visual Sourcesafe (feh!).
But - now, we've run into the same problem that the poster is inquiring about. What about VPN?
Well, no problem..(or so I thought). As one of the few people around actually helping push the NT boxes out of the office and applauding the arrival of the linux boxes, I happily jumped onto the web and started investigating what solutions were available for me. What did I discover? oh - there's plenty of things available - all of them although very noble in their attempts - do not do what we need.. not exactly, anyway.
What do we need? we need simplicity - that's what we need. We need our employees to be able to click the little dialup networking icon, connect to the office, and have it seem like they were here in the office. To be able to see our machines, and for us to see their machines.
Forget about all the other ways it can be done. The fact is - the people that need VPN don't want to waste their time futzing with setting up extra hardware in their house. They want simple.
The only thing that comes close is PoPToP and unfortunately, at this time it doesn't come close enough. I could go into detail why it doesn't come close, but if you subscribe to the mailing list, or try to implement it yourself, you'll see why it's not ready for primetime.
Many people are bitching about the guy wanting something for free and blah, blah. Well, folks - the solution ships free with NT, and it works. When you finally convince the headcheeses to junk the NT solutions and move over to linux (it takes a lot of convincing) you can't come back a day later and say, "oh, btw, we need an extra (insert dollar amount) for this VPN hardware solution." Because you know - they'll just come back and say, "That worked just fine with NT."
So, this has just been alot of babble really. This issue just hits home with me because I've been dealing with it so much. We tried multiple times with PoPToP, but it just wasn't consistent, or reliable in operation.
We found a solution, though. We kept the linux boxes, and just left the NT box around to be the VPN gateway. We'll probably upgrade that machine to Windows 2000 in the near future, though. Windows 2000 has even better VPN built-in.
To the poster, if you don't find anything that works for you, and you can budget a hardware solution, I recommend you look into the same hardware solution we looked at, but cannot afford. It's called, "Intraport." The company was recently acquired by Cisco. Here's a link.
I'm done now.