From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 24 16:08:53 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id QAA10852 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 1995 16:08:53 -0700 Received: from elf.kendall.mdcc.edu (elf.kendall.mdcc.edu [147.70.150.122]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA10838 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 1995 16:08:36 -0700 Received: (from freelist@localhost) by elf.kendall.mdcc.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA07322; Thu, 24 Aug 1995 18:58:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 18:58:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "Don's FList drop" To: Gary Palmer cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Netsite communications server works Great In-Reply-To: <15964.809304219@palmer.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 24 Aug 1995, Gary Palmer wrote: > In message , "Don > 's FList drop" writes: > >Yes, the commerce server has this. I'll be dumping it soon to put just > >the communications server in place, though. If nothign else, it should be > >a smaller binary. Dunno if the memory consumption will be any less. > > Probably not much smaller. Crypto code isn't all that big. Nope, but it's Extra Crap I Don't Need and adds junk to the admin menu. I run under the assumption I will not the the last person twiddling stuff, so unnecessary junk goes the way of the wind. > >There's a lot of useful stuff > >in there. You can up, restart and shut down the server, alter the max and > >min number of processes you run at once, read and rotate the logs, get > >current and overall load reports. > > Yep. Remember that. Not all highly useful stuff - we prefer using cron > jobs for log rotation and analysis... Ditto, but my point was it's not all stuff useful only at install time. > >One kinda okay thing is the abilty to > >remap directories from there instead of needing to go to the line and do > >symlinks. So if you want just /tech-papers to point to > >/usr/home/dorks/babble, you can do it from the interface. It's a no > >brainer for me to do it, but the Windoze folks I work with don't have to > >learn anything new. (Apparently a life goal for some of them) > > Hehe. Yeah, there seemed to be a lot of nice features which look nice, > and make nice bell & whistle sounds for you (ok, no sounds, but you > get the idea), but only a few had any real use past the installation > procedure, if at all. I don't see how this is only useful at install time. I add symlinks all the time. While we think it's dorky, there are plenty of people who would prefer to be able to do this kind of thing. There is also the standpoint that it is better to do this translation at the front end instead of at the filesystem level. Not _my_ standpoint, but a point none the less. > Yep. But I'd prefer firewalls (IP source addresses can be spoofed > ...), and there are better ways of protecting your system, like not > making it so easily accessible (e.g. not supplying a TCP port, and > just running it off the file system...) *shrug* We are firewalled, and I don't have the admin port open to the outside world, but it's a useful feature anyways. I was speaking of what the value of the software is to the world in general, not just to me. > >I'm not saying I'da paid $1500 of my money or my exployers money for it, > >but their nonprofit deal was certainly worth it. I'm trying to convince > >the network guys here to dump the Netware NLM server they have now (with > >no CGI! jeez...) for communications server on NT. (anti-unix bigots, > >don't flame me about it...) > > Sorry? Did I just hear you call NT UN*X? :-) Do I stutter? Hmm... I see how that could read that way now. No, I meant I was encouraging them to use the NT version (rather than encouraging them to use the FreeBSD/BSDI version) because they are anti-unix bigots. Or rather, they are unwilling to "put all their eggs in one basket" and want to spread the load. (Which is a nice way to say only one person there has any unix ability and they don't want to be beholden to him or bother to hire someone with the ability) > I've used NT. It's not UN*X, it's a POSIX compliant (alledgedly - > never had the chance to verify that) multi-user version of windows. > Nothing special. For server use it's hopeless - the overhead is way to > high :-( What _do_ you like, Gary? From here it looks like not much.