Change S10network to K10network and you've just broken sendmail, which should shut down BEFORE network, but now shuts down after it. In the case where you're disabling something, it won't matter much, but that doesn't make it the right way to do it.
should we all bow down to l33tness?
I'm and MCSE I didn't say you should bow down to leetness, but you should at least learn the difference between "an" and "and".
Luckily, the poster to whom I replied appreciated my advice. Ironic that you call me a troll though (even though I've feed one with this reply). --
xinetd is an inetd replacement. It's a little more to learn, but instead of a single file, each service is now its own config file. This makes it act much like SysV init, in fact, the config files are in/etc/xinet.d/
each service which is listed in/etc/xinet.d/ can now be set disable=yes or disable=no (how you turn on or off an xinetd service) manually or through {ntsysv | ckconfig | rl editor}. Additionally, it is much more secure than inetd (though I don't know how it compares to tcp wrappers) and more configurable (ex: "run telnet, but only on the internal interface").
R'ing TFM is always a Good Idea:)
{apropos | man -k} is your friend
... and go through rc3.d... *cough*/usr/sbin/ntsysv *cough*
Not that I don't agree with you, just that manually playing around in/etc/rc*.d/ isn't the Right Way to do it. If you don't like ntsysv, at least use ckconfig. For the graphical types, use the runlevel editor in control-panel. --
Wait a minute. I thought that OS was "User Friendly(tm)" and "Intuitive(tm)". Shouldn't this preclude the need for a CS degree?
In the world of logic, we call this "having your cake and eating it too." Perhaps it isn't the tech's fault, but the society that bought the "intuitive" line of bullshit.
printing, i might add, doesn't seem to have anything to do with "files" And the START button has nothing to do with shutting off a computer. --
And me without mod points.
*FINALLY* someone who wins on two points:
a) you have specific complaints that aren't rooted in fantasy
b) You don't offer them as kvetching, instead you list them as what SHOULD be done. Solutions instead of problems.
And I thought that rational discussion was impossible on slashdot.
Thanks.
Surveillance != Spying
Both are intelligence gathering operations, but spying is BY DEFINITION covert. Flying in uniform, in a marked military aircraft is just about as far from covert as one can get. --
Catholics venerate the saints, and the Virgin Mary
Ahh, I see, but the "Jesus = G-d" paradox doesn't concern you? Webster's, by the way, disagrees with your interpretation of "venerate". Respect and reverance is hardly worship. Here's a little more food for thought:
The Ten Commandments originally appear in Exodus, one of the books of the "Old" Testament. In those 5 books, 603 other laws are mentioned. How many do Christians follow? How many can you name?
I thought so. --
how does "dot-com" annoy me? Let me count the ways:
usps.com -> usps.gov
goarmy.com -> army.mil
The latest IRS commercial annoys me so I mute it, but I'm sure that their online "eFile" (i- and e- rant will be saved for another day) service uses a.com host, instead of.gov.
*grumble* --
Perhaps I was unclear.
Standard cable internet here is $40/mo.
For $90/mo (total, it's not "100+") I (personally) get these benefits:
"Priority bandwidth" (not sure how scientific this is.)
800kbps up, between 3.5Mbps and 5Mbps down.
2 IPs, one of which is static.
Unrestricted services, including httpd and ircd.
Quicker response time and better SLA (though I have only had to call once).
Having never even investigated DSL an option, I'm curious to learn what $90/mo would buy me from the *average* DSL provider.
My point being that this "business" account is my personal service. For an actual business, I would use neither cable nor DSL. No to cable because it's shared bandwidth, and comparatively small upstream. No to DSL because, let's face it, it's a failing business model, and I don't expect it to be around much longer at this pricing schedule. Support for this opinion can be found at http://www.dslreports.com/
Hope this clears any misunderstanding. --
If the "more expensive" part doesn't bother you (or others) then perhaps investigate a higher QoS from cable. TWC calls it "business class", the entry level to this is "priority bandwidth", 1 static IP and one DHCP, no server restricions, and generally higher quality support. The rDNS may be a tad difficult. At $100-ish per month, it's not bad. --
I'll take a stab at it.
Joe T-1 pays in the neighborhood of $1000/mo.
That's about $670/Mbps
Billy's Big Company has 8 of the suckers, so he pays less. Perhaps $800/mo ea.
That's about $530/Mbps
Ralph's T-3 Cafe has a pretty good deal at #21,400
That's about $475/Mbps
See where I'm going with this?
Even the big buyers of lots of bandwidth pay big dollars. If my circuit is consistantly 3Mbps down, and I *use* it, I'm getting at least $600 "worth" of bandwidth for my $100/mo. --
For what it's worth, my "business class" cable connection (at home) runs about $90, and I have no restrictions on what servers I run. The 800kbps to 1Mbps up isn't bad, but I sometimes wish it matched my average of 4Mbps down.
Oh, and they'd be happy to hook up a non-CATV customer, for $10/mo extra (for residential accounts, business accounts incur no fee.) --
No, it's not advertised as "secure", it's advertised as "as Private as a Wired LAN".
What you forget is that if someone had the time and money, they could intercept the signals travelling from your keyboard to the computer, the display buffer's signals to the monitor, the ethernet signal travelling down your UTP cable...
The point is that to the average person, a *properly configured* wireless LAN, using WEP, is exactly as private as sitting on a hub. --
Folks, I know that security and related foo are a juicy topic that/. loves to tear into, however, step back a moment and apply some grey matter.
Would you post a white-paper saying that the 802.3 NIC you bought didn't encrypt your traffic? How about that 802.3 hub that lets anyone who has an ethernet card and a long enough (within 100m of course) cable see all your data, unencrypted?! Notice anything yet? That's right, 802.11, just like 802.3 is just a layer 2 application. The highest level 802.* understands is MAC address. I, for one, am thankful that the folks who developed it went the extra mile to put a few controls ON THE RF SIDE of things to make it difficult for an attacker to enter a wireless network. However, the person who doesn't understand that 802.11 devices are either a) NICs or b) Bridges, is delusional, and needs to (re)take that Introduction To Networking class.
<rant>
Oh, yeah, and it has become very bothersome, personally, when someone mis-configures, or doesn't configure a device, and then complains about the failures and shortcommings that ensue, blaming the protocol/device/technology/product.
We didn't give the Netcraft "benchmarks" any credence, why should we pay attention to this crap?
</rant> --
Just so you know, the only security that FHSS has over DSSS is the frequency hopping, and its pattern. If you wish to gain access to an 802.11a network, you simply use an 802.11a radio to do it. Remember (or perhaps learn) that Frequency Hopping radios (at least, in 802.11a) broadcast their hopping pattern... how else do you expect child radios to stay in sync?
I'm not sure about the capacity of 802.11a, first glance places it in 5-foo GHz, which would greatly increase bandwidth, if implimented correctly (but markedly reduces range). If you're talking about 2.4GHz FreqHopping, it's limited to 2Mbps total, which would give it about 1Mbps throughput). --
We dropped LMR like a bad habit about 6 months ago. Look into Helia[x|c] (can't remember exactly, it's a brand name). It's about 1dB loss per hundred feet.
We've got a 17mi link, 9mi of which is water, at "11Mbps" (11Mbps is actually 6.4Mbps).
Slashdot Mirror
s/UNIX approved OS\'s/UNIX approved vendors/
This is why the list shows "Apple" and not a specific OS.
--
ncurses: ntsysv
GUI: Run Level Editor
Those are the Right Ways to do it. Here's why:
Change S10network to K10network and you've just broken sendmail, which should shut down BEFORE network, but now shuts down after it. In the case where you're disabling something, it won't matter much, but that doesn't make it the right way to do it.
should we all bow down to l33tness?
I'm and MCSE
I didn't say you should bow down to leetness, but you should at least learn the difference between "an" and "and".
Luckily, the poster to whom I replied appreciated my advice. Ironic that you call me a troll though (even though I've feed one with this reply).
--
xinetd is an inetd replacement. It's a little more to learn, but instead of a single file, each service is now its own config file. This makes it act much like SysV init, in fact, the config files are in /etc/xinet.d/
/etc/xinet.d/ can now be set disable=yes or disable=no (how you turn on or off an xinetd service) manually or through {ntsysv | ckconfig | rl editor}. Additionally, it is much more secure than inetd (though I don't know how it compares to tcp wrappers) and more configurable (ex: "run telnet, but only on the internal interface").
:)
each service which is listed in
R'ing TFM is always a Good Idea
{apropos | man -k} is your friend
-Mith
--
*cough*
Not that I don't agree with you, just that manually playing around in
--
To grok joke, s/computer/monitor/
Enjoy.
--
Wait a minute. I thought that OS was "User Friendly(tm)" and "Intuitive(tm)". Shouldn't this preclude the need for a CS degree?
In the world of logic, we call this "having your cake and eating it too." Perhaps it isn't the tech's fault, but the society that bought the "intuitive" line of bullshit.
printing, i might add, doesn't seem to have anything to do with "files"
And the START button has nothing to do with shutting off a computer.
--
No, RFC 882 is the dot in dot-com.
:)
--
And me without mod points.
*FINALLY* someone who wins on two points:
a) you have specific complaints that aren't rooted in fantasy
b) You don't offer them as kvetching, instead you list them as what SHOULD be done. Solutions instead of problems.
And I thought that rational discussion was impossible on slashdot.
Thanks.
--
Yeah, ok, that would be great.
--
Ahhh, the bitter taste of irony.
it's -> it is
its -> belonging to it.
Frontpage makes its authors look like morons.
Frontpage does not make it is authors look like morons.
--
Surveillance != Spying
Both are intelligence gathering operations, but spying is BY DEFINITION covert. Flying in uniform, in a marked military aircraft is just about as far from covert as one can get.
--
probably wont run on AAA bats anytime soon.
:)
actually, Cisco has some interesting plans in the powering of their new 802.11 products.
Inline power from the ethernet port
--
Catholics venerate the saints, and the Virgin Mary
Ahh, I see, but the "Jesus = G-d" paradox doesn't concern you? Webster's, by the way, disagrees with your interpretation of "venerate". Respect and reverance is hardly worship. Here's a little more food for thought:
The Ten Commandments originally appear in Exodus, one of the books of the "Old" Testament. In those 5 books, 603 other laws are mentioned. How many do Christians follow? How many can you name?
I thought so.
--
how does "dot-com" annoy me? Let me count the ways: .com host, instead of .gov.
usps.com -> usps.gov
goarmy.com -> army.mil
The latest IRS commercial annoys me so I mute it, but I'm sure that their online "eFile" (i- and e- rant will be saved for another day) service uses a
*grumble*
--
Perhaps I was unclear.
Standard cable internet here is $40/mo.
For $90/mo (total, it's not "100+") I (personally) get these benefits:
"Priority bandwidth" (not sure how scientific this is.)
800kbps up, between 3.5Mbps and 5Mbps down.
2 IPs, one of which is static.
Unrestricted services, including httpd and ircd.
Quicker response time and better SLA (though I have only had to call once).
Having never even investigated DSL an option, I'm curious to learn what $90/mo would buy me from the *average* DSL provider.
My point being that this "business" account is my personal service. For an actual business, I would use neither cable nor DSL. No to cable because it's shared bandwidth, and comparatively small upstream. No to DSL because, let's face it, it's a failing business model, and I don't expect it to be around much longer at this pricing schedule. Support for this opinion can be found at http://www.dslreports.com/
Hope this clears any misunderstanding.
--
Don't confuse '[a]syncronous' which describes the technology, with '[a]symmetric'.
You have symmetric A[syncronous]DSL
--
If the "more expensive" part doesn't bother you (or others) then perhaps investigate a higher QoS from cable. TWC calls it "business class", the entry level to this is "priority bandwidth", 1 static IP and one DHCP, no server restricions, and generally higher quality support. The rDNS may be a tad difficult. At $100-ish per month, it's not bad.
--
I'll take a stab at it.
Joe T-1 pays in the neighborhood of $1000/mo.
That's about $670/Mbps
Billy's Big Company has 8 of the suckers, so he pays less. Perhaps $800/mo ea.
That's about $530/Mbps
Ralph's T-3 Cafe has a pretty good deal at #21,400
That's about $475/Mbps
See where I'm going with this?
Even the big buyers of lots of bandwidth pay big dollars. If my circuit is consistantly 3Mbps down, and I *use* it, I'm getting at least $600 "worth" of bandwidth for my $100/mo.
--
For what it's worth, my "business class" cable connection (at home) runs about $90, and I have no restrictions on what servers I run. The 800kbps to 1Mbps up isn't bad, but I sometimes wish it matched my average of 4Mbps down.
Oh, and they'd be happy to hook up a non-CATV customer, for $10/mo extra (for residential accounts, business accounts incur no fee.)
--
No, it's not advertised as "secure", it's advertised as "as Private as a Wired LAN". ...
What you forget is that if someone had the time and money, they could intercept the signals travelling from your keyboard to the computer, the display buffer's signals to the monitor, the ethernet signal travelling down your UTP cable
The point is that to the average person, a *properly configured* wireless LAN, using WEP, is exactly as private as sitting on a hub.
--
Folks, I know that security and related foo are a juicy topic that /. loves to tear into, however, step back a moment and apply some grey matter.
Would you post a white-paper saying that the 802.3 NIC you bought didn't encrypt your traffic? How about that 802.3 hub that lets anyone who has an ethernet card and a long enough (within 100m of course) cable see all your data, unencrypted?! Notice anything yet? That's right, 802.11, just like 802.3 is just a layer 2 application. The highest level 802.* understands is MAC address. I, for one, am thankful that the folks who developed it went the extra mile to put a few controls ON THE RF SIDE of things to make it difficult for an attacker to enter a wireless network. However, the person who doesn't understand that 802.11 devices are either a) NICs or b) Bridges, is delusional, and needs to (re)take that Introduction To Networking class.
<rant>
Oh, yeah, and it has become very bothersome, personally, when someone mis-configures, or doesn't configure a device, and then complains about the failures and shortcommings that ensue, blaming the protocol/device/technology/product.
We didn't give the Netcraft "benchmarks" any credence, why should we pay attention to this crap?
</rant>
--
Just so you know, the only security that FHSS has over DSSS is the frequency hopping, and its pattern. If you wish to gain access to an 802.11a network, you simply use an 802.11a radio to do it. Remember (or perhaps learn) that Frequency Hopping radios (at least, in 802.11a) broadcast their hopping pattern ... how else do you expect child radios to stay in sync?
I'm not sure about the capacity of 802.11a, first glance places it in 5-foo GHz, which would greatly increase bandwidth, if implimented correctly (but markedly reduces range). If you're talking about 2.4GHz FreqHopping, it's limited to 2Mbps total, which would give it about 1Mbps throughput).
--
We dropped LMR like a bad habit about 6 months ago. Look into Helia[x|c] (can't remember exactly, it's a brand name). It's about 1dB loss per hundred feet.
We've got a 17mi link, 9mi of which is water, at "11Mbps" (11Mbps is actually 6.4Mbps).
--
Heh, I did the same thing, then waited for the download from kernel.org anyway.
For what it's worth, md5sums match.
--
# make oldconfig
--