WSUS doesn't require a domain, but a domain will make it somewhat easier.
Basically you need to tell the integrated AU client to talk the WSUS rather than Windows Update, and it comes with an ActiveDirectory GPO template with which to configure the machines.
Without a domain you will need to import the registry changes manually.
Everything you need to know is in the WSUS documentation.
Oh, and WSUS isn't supported under Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP Pro - that doesn't mean it won't work, but the recommended server platforms are Windows 2000 Server/Advanded Server and Windows Server 2003. Chances are you have at least one Windows server anyways.
BTW you should seriously consider something like g4u or unattended (http://unattended.sf.net) for maintaining the machines.
You're getting bit by the fact that there's more to MS PPTP than meets the eye - the tunnel itself is actually a GRE tunnel with some funky MS-proprietary encryption, with a control connection at 1723/tcp (or something like that).
It can be done, but a 2.2 kernel needs to be patched to do it. I've not tried it, but the 2.4 kernel should allow you to "port-forward" the tcp connection and the GRE tunnel back to the Win2k system.
Just keep in mind that there's no connection tracking, so it has to be the same Windows system making the VPN each and every time, and one and only one VPN can be going at any one time.
If all you have available are Macs, use 'em. Put 'em to good use. And rescue them from MacOS:)
As to the best distribution for PPC Macs... it depends on the Mac ie a NuBus Mac is gonna run a different distro from a PCI Mac. And even on PCI Macs, your success rate will depend greatly on how old of a PCI Mac it is.
You would do good to ask around, or even take some time and play with what's available before you commit to a particular distribution.
In a way, it make sense that IIS can do that - it runs on NT and Win2k, which resolves names via NetBIOS that it can't resolve via DNS.
It also goes to show that you *really* shouldn't trust an NT system that's not protected by a firewall - you never know what it's going to spew out to the world next.
freenet.nether.net is a place to get free shell accounts on a UNIX system. They'll probably have everything you want (except for not rolling over for the lawyers).
Beyond that, DIY, as others have said. Get together with some buds and have a co-lo at a local ISP. Once you get past the hardware, cost is $150US a month (where I live, at least:)
Something is broken with their apache config, either hardware-wise or software-wise. I've got a Dual P166 that can do 130k hits a day while barely breaking a sweat.
If all they can manage out of apache is 20k-100k hits a day on a modern computer they obviously did something wrong with one of:
linux
apache
the software they're running under apache could be unoptimal for running on a unix-type sytem
* Anyone with a security guarantee is smokin' something
* Yes, djbdns doesn't to AXFR/IXFR transfers. Yes, that'll increase security. But goodby to interoperability with someone who doesn't use djbdns.
I think that those people running the dev kernels could enlighten us about a few things. (Those of use who don't use Linux or don't feel like DLing 12 megs of source and ripping out our current kernel.)
You don't need to rip out your current kernel - I have 2.2.14 sitting around as a backup on some of my systems that run 2.3.
1) Is it an FASTER?
Visibly, especially if you have an SMP system.
2) How is the stability? Since this is a pre release, it better be pretty stable. The 2.2.0pre series laster 10 kernels or so, so this is fairly close to release.
I haven't had problems, although things newer than 2.3.48 have been unusable for me for various reasons (not stability related, though). YMWV (your mileage *will* vary), of course.
3) Any new features that would warrent upgrading (aside from the afformentioned speed/stability) I also have another question. What kind of resource usage are we looking at in this kernel compared to the 2.2x series? I say this because I have yet to see a major OS vendor pull a Be and actually make an already memery efficiant systems use even less memory at the same time it added a bunch of features.
The biggest non-speed related advantage is netfilter (a replacement for ipchains that's quite a bit more efficient). Everything else is for performace, scaleability, or both.
On the memory front, it's a mixed bag between taking up less memory or taking up more. The kernel marks more memory as unusable in 2.3 than 2.2 (dmesg indicates that that memory is where ACPI sits, even though I have ACPI disabled on the motherboard).
However, it certainly swaps less, even after several days of use.
WRT memory consider it to be about the same as 2.2.x.
Then anyone who can get root access, even if only temporarily, can gain access to the swap file. And if you think gaining root access is impossible, it's time to wake up.
True. But if root gets broken you're in trouble anyway.
Or maybe more than one person uses this computer. What is your lab mate with a boot floppy doing while you're at lunch?
Yep, realized that in the middle of class last night...
Slashdot Mirror
WSUS
t eservices/default.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/upda
The registry is how the AU ciient knows how to talk to WSUS, the GP templates are the fancy GUI way of doing it.
WSUS doesn't require a domain, but a domain will make it somewhat easier. Basically you need to tell the integrated AU client to talk the WSUS rather than Windows Update, and it comes with an ActiveDirectory GPO template with which to configure the machines. Without a domain you will need to import the registry changes manually. Everything you need to know is in the WSUS documentation. Oh, and WSUS isn't supported under Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP Pro - that doesn't mean it won't work, but the recommended server platforms are Windows 2000 Server/Advanded Server and Windows Server 2003. Chances are you have at least one Windows server anyways. BTW you should seriously consider something like g4u or unattended (http://unattended.sf.net) for maintaining the machines.
Why?
Don't blame "glibc hell".
Blame that *&%( RedHat for shipping libc.so binaries that are incompatible with everything else.
You're getting bit by the fact that there's more to MS PPTP than meets the eye - the tunnel itself is actually a GRE tunnel with some funky MS-proprietary encryption, with a control connection at 1723/tcp (or something like that).
It can be done, but a 2.2 kernel needs to be patched to do it. I've not tried it, but the 2.4 kernel should allow you to "port-forward" the tcp connection and the GRE tunnel back to the Win2k system.
Just keep in mind that there's no connection tracking, so it has to be the same Windows system making the VPN each and every time, and one and only one VPN can be going at any one time.
If all you have available are Macs, use 'em. Put 'em to good use. And rescue them from MacOS :)
As to the best distribution for PPC Macs... it depends on the Mac ie a NuBus Mac is gonna run a different distro from a PCI Mac. And even on PCI Macs, your success rate will depend greatly on how old of a PCI Mac it is.
You would do good to ask around, or even take some time and play with what's available before you commit to a particular distribution.
> An instrument of evolution in the birthplace of M$ and grunge music. We're doomed.
:)
So it's the birthplace of grunge and where MS currently lives? I think they both need all the help they can get
In a way, it make sense that IIS can do that - it runs on NT and Win2k, which resolves names via NetBIOS that it can't resolve via DNS.
It also goes to show that you *really* shouldn't trust an NT system that's not protected by a firewall - you never know what it's going to spew out to the world next.
freenet.nether.net is a place to get free shell accounts on a UNIX system. They'll probably have everything you want (except for not rolling over for the lawyers).
:)
Beyond that, DIY, as others have said. Get together with some buds and have a co-lo at a local ISP. Once you get past the hardware, cost is $150US a month (where I live, at least
If all they can manage out of apache is 20k-100k hits a day on a modern computer they obviously did something wrong with one of:
djbdns is all fine and dandy but:
* Anyone with a security guarantee is smokin' something
* Yes, djbdns doesn't to AXFR/IXFR transfers. Yes, that'll increase security. But goodby to interoperability with someone who doesn't use djbdns.
I think that those people running the dev kernels could enlighten us about a few things. (Those of use who don't use Linux or don't feel like DLing 12 megs of source and ripping out our current kernel.)
You don't need to rip out your current kernel - I have 2.2.14 sitting around as a backup on some of my systems that run 2.3.
1) Is it an FASTER?
Visibly, especially if you have an SMP system.
2) How is the stability? Since this is a pre release, it better be pretty stable. The 2.2.0pre series laster 10 kernels or so, so this is fairly close to release.
I haven't had problems, although things newer than 2.3.48 have been unusable for me for various reasons (not stability related, though). YMWV (your mileage *will* vary), of course.
3) Any new features that would warrent upgrading (aside from the afformentioned speed/stability) I also have another question. What kind of resource usage are we looking at in this kernel compared to the 2.2x series? I say this because I have yet to see a major OS vendor pull a Be and actually make an already memery efficiant systems use even less memory at the same time it added a bunch of features.
The biggest non-speed related advantage is netfilter (a replacement for ipchains that's quite a bit more efficient). Everything else is for performace, scaleability, or both.
On the memory front, it's a mixed bag between taking up less memory or taking up more. The kernel marks more memory as unusable in 2.3 than 2.2 (dmesg indicates that that memory is where ACPI sits, even though I have ACPI disabled on the motherboard).
However, it certainly swaps less, even after several days of use.
WRT memory consider it to be about the same as 2.2.x.
True. But if root gets broken you're in trouble anyway.
Or maybe more than one person uses this computer. What is your lab mate with a boot floppy doing while you're at lunch?
Yep, realized that in the middle of class last night...
But that's a moot point if the swap device/swap file are accessibly only by root.
It's lack of ActiveX is a detriment? I thought that was a feature :)
Before anyone asks - kde.tdyc.com is a name alias yuma.tdyc.com. In case no one else can resolve kde.tdyc.com :)