22 Jan
2002
22 Jan
'02
4:29 a.m.
Not that anyone cares, but if you've been trying to contact me for the
past 10 days and I have not responded, it is because:
a) I was on vacation
b) When I got back I discovered some little punk assed bitch had hacked
into my server and it had to be taken off the local network where it sits
for security reasons.
I'm only now getting this stupid server reconfigured properly again. All
I can say is for all my Linux evangelizing, it still as a LONG way to go
towards ease of setup. I thought SuSE was going to make things much
easier but I must say I had about as much trouble with SuSE as I did with
my old Red Hat setup.
Fooey on crappy Linux installs. Fooey on lame-o's who waste my time by
stumbling their way into my server and causing me to lose precious time.
Anyway, I hope this actually makes it out of here. And I hope whoever is
trying to contact me will be able to get through successfully.
It will still take me a day to work out bugs and get back to anyone who's
e-mailed me, so I appreciate your patience.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
22 Jan
22 Jan
2:01 p.m.
b) When I got back I discovered some little punk assed
bitch had hacked
into my server and it had to be taken off the local network where it sits
for security reasons.
This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD for
your server. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now, and while I think
it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as a server, if I want a stable secure
server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course OpenBSD sucks in that it doesn't support
multiprocessor systems!
Oh, and yes, I realize you're probably not in the mood for someone
suggesting you switch to a different OS.
Zane
2:27 p.m.
New subject: OT: Common sense security (was Re: Here I Am)
Also, a backup procedure is a very good idea. As long as you're careful
with what you do with Linux (eg. don't run services you dont need, keep up
with security updates, etc.), you should have just as secure of a system
as OpenBSD. Don't run thinks like BIND, or other buggy large software
packages, run more secure equivalents... like MaraDNS instead of BIND,
qmail instead of sendmail, thttpd instead of Apache (well, Apache is
unlikely to be much of a problem if properly configured)...
<plug>I just got a DDS-3 (12G uncompressed) drive from PCSurplusOnline for
$175 (pull from server), and it works beautifully. </plug> 12-24G of data
on a $8-$10 tape is a VERY affordable solution if you ask me, there's very
little reason not to do backups. At least you could do CD-R(W) backups
as little as $0.30 per 700M disk.
Just my $0.02 ($0.03 CDN)
-- Pat
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Zane H. Healy wrote:
b) When I got
back I discovered some little punk assed bitch had hacked
into my server and it had to be taken off the local network where it sits
for security reasons.
This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD for
your server. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now, and while I think
it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as a server, if I want a stable secure
server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course OpenBSD sucks in that it doesn't support
multiprocessor systems!
Oh, and yes, I realize you're probably not in the mood for someone
suggesting you switch to a different OS.
Zane
4:01 p.m.
New subject: OT: Common sense security (was Re: Here I Am)
Also, a backup procedure is a very good idea. As long
as you're careful
with what you do with Linux (eg. don't run services you dont need, keep up
with security updates, etc.), you should have just as secure of a system
as OpenBSD. Don't run thinks like BIND, or other buggy large software
packages, run more secure equivalents... like MaraDNS instead of BIND,
qmail instead of sendmail, thttpd instead of Apache (well, Apache is
unlikely to be much of a problem if properly configured)...
Actually, with *ANY* operating system you need to keep up with security
updates.
<plug>I just got a DDS-3 (12G uncompressed)
drive from PCSurplusOnline for
$175 (pull from server), and it works beautifully. </plug> 12-24G of data
on a $8-$10 tape is a VERY affordable solution if you ask me, there's very
little reason not to do backups. At least you could do CD-R(W) backups
as little as $0.30 per 700M disk.
I bought a DLT4000 and a TZ867, removed the TZ86 (converted to DSSI and
installed in my VAX 4000/500 to read TK50/TK70 tapes), and installed the
DLT4000, which turned the TZ867 into a DLT4700. I have 140GB/280GB of
storage available, and use that to back up all my systems. The initial
cost was a little high ($400 for the DLT4000 and $250 for the TZ867),
but the long-term costs are low, and DLT is very reliable.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
3:56 p.m.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Zane H. Healy wrote:
That's why you go with NetBSD.
Peace... Sridhar
b) When I got
back I discovered some little punk assed bitch had hacked
into my server and it had to be taken off the local network where it sits
for security reasons.
This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD for
your server. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now, and while I think
it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as a server, if I want a stable secure
server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course OpenBSD sucks in that it doesn't support
multiprocessor systems!
4:14 p.m.
b) When I got back I discovered some little punk assed
bitch had hacked
into my server and it had to be taken off the local network where it sits
for security reasons.
This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD for
your server. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now, and while I think
it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as a server, if I want a stable secure
server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course OpenBSD sucks in that it doesn't support
multiprocessor systems! 
4:55 p.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Eric Dittman wrote:
I seem to remember the difference between NetBSD and
FreeBSD
was NetBSD's goal was to run on anything, while FreeBSD's goal
was to run on x86 systems. Has that changed?
Not really. FreeBSD has a pretty good Alpha port now, and OpenBSD is
branching out all over the place. I'm probably inviting flameage, but
my perception is that lately OpeBSD is growing much more horizontally
than vertically.
Doc
5:02 p.m.
New subject: OT: *BSD (was Re: Here I Am)
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Eric Dittman wrote:
I seem to remember the difference between NetBSD and
FreeBSD was NetBSD's
goal was to run on anything, while FreeBSD's goal was to run on x86 systems.
Has that changed?
It changed slightly. FreeBSD runs on i386 and Alpha today, and the port to
UltraSPARC is already booting to single user mode. FreeBSD heads for
supporting mainstream hardware, whereas NetBSD runs on everything
(everything).
If you don't care for the CPU architecture, a FreeBSD/i386 system is a very
comfortable environment providing for easy installation and upgrades as well
as a pretty complete feature set including volume management, reliable and
growable file system and Linux emulation.
I've tried Linux a few times, different distributions. None of them could
convince me that Linux is somehow 'superiour' for my applications, let alone
ease of installation and maintenance. But then, I'm more of an old-school
Unix buff, so much of my preference could be related to the fact that BSDs in
general do things like we did them 15 years ago :)
-Hans
P.S.: Yes, I declare myself guilty. Those of you with limited time will want
to kill this thread right now :)
--
finger hans(a)huebner.org for details
5:34 p.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Eric Dittman wrote:
I seem to remember the difference between NetBSD and
FreeBSD was
NetBSD's goal was to run on anything, while FreeBSD's goal was to run
on x86 systems. Has that changed?
Not really. It runs on Alpha now, but it's still quite x86-centric.
NetBSD works much better.
Peace... Sridhar
23 Jan
23 Jan
12:07 a.m.
Not quite true....
NetBSD's goal IS to run on everything, that is true. However, FreeBSD is not
limited to x86 systems. There is something to be said for not just trying to
run on everything under the sun - and that directly translates into
stability of the OS.
Jay West
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dittman" <dittman(a)dittman.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Here I Am
I seem to remember the difference between NetBSD and FreeBSD
was NetBSD's goal was to run on anything, while FreeBSD's goal
was to run on x86 systems. Has that changed?
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> > > b) When I got back I discovered some
little punk assed bitch had
hacked
> > > into my server and it had to be taken
off the local network where it
sits
> > > for security reasons.
> >
> > This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD
for
> > your server. I've been using Linux for
over 10 years now, and while I
think
> > it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as
a server, if I want a stable
secure
> > server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course
OpenBSD sucks in that it doesn't
support
multiprocessor systems!
That's why you go with NetBSD. 
1:54 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, emanuel stiebler wrote:
Yeah, the assertion that porting to a wider variety of platforms
decreases overall stability isn't necessarily correct. One of the goals
of NetBSD is to run on as many platforms as possible. What I've learned
through my involvement with NetBSD over the past few years is that this
wide support of platforms is now only secondary to a more significant
/root/ philosophy of the OS development efforts, and that is the focus
on the design of highly portable code.
The end result is that the various kernel subsystems are clean and
extremely well abstracted-- especially in comparison to the competition.
Code reuse across the platforms is higher than I've seen anywhere else.
It's still not perfect, but it strives to be as point of principle.
The process of throwing as much different hardware at NetBSD as possible
also means that the OS gets exercised in significantly more ways than
any other system out there. This is a great way to find portability and
design flaws quickly. Additionally, the constraints you face in trying
to create a middle ground between all the systems, with a relatively
small group of people, forces you to use good software development
practices.
It's a huge task to span from the support of 0.9 MIPS MicroVAX-IIs to
that of the fastest Alpha and Pentium processors. The NetBSD code has
evolved to deal with damn near anything. I think taking this long-view
will serve to the advantage of NetBSD in the future.
-brian.
Jay West wrote:
There is
something to be said for not just trying to
run on everything under the sun - and that directly translates into
stability of the OS.
So, suddenly windows runs stable, just because they support x86 only ? 
28 Jan
28 Jan
9:03 p.m.
At 07:38 AM 23/01/2002 -0700, emanuel stiebler wrote:
Jay West wrote:
Well NT on Alpha was significantly more stable than NT on Intel mainly
because there were only a limited number of supported (or even available)
configurations. What amazes me about Windows is not that it crashes often
but that it runs at all given the mix of hardware that it attempts to support.
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
| "If God had wanted soccer played in the
| air, the sky would be painted green"
There is something to be said for not just trying to
run on everything under the sun - and that directly translates into
stability of the OS.
So, suddenly windows runs stable, just because they support x86 only ? 
29 Jan
29 Jan
4:22 a.m.
It's amazing how stable the win$ucks platform is given the principle
that it does not reclaim allocated memory back to the OS if it is
not absolutly certain it's safe! Ok, you're left with a memory leak
there, but you can always reboot the bastard every other day ;=)
stability will go quite a few microsecs this way ................
Sipke de Wal
------------------------------------------------------------
http://xgistor.ath.cx
------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Huw Davies <Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Here I Am
At 07:38 AM 23/01/2002 -0700, emanuel stiebler wrote:
Jay West wrote:
Well NT on Alpha was significantly more stable than NT on Intel mainly
because there were only a limited number of supported (or even available)
configurations. What amazes me about Windows is not that it crashes often
but that it runs at all given the mix of hardware that it attempts to support.
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
| "If God had wanted soccer played in the
| air, the sky would be painted green"
There is something to be said for not just trying to
run on everything under the sun - and that directly translates into
stability of the OS.
So, suddenly windows runs stable, just because they support x86 only ? 
30 Jan
30 Jan
9:26 a.m.
--- Sipke de Wal <sipke(a)wxs.nl> wrote:
It's amazing how stable the win$ucks platform is
given the principle
that it does not reclaim allocated memory back to the OS if it is
not absolutly certain it's safe! Ok, you're left with a memory leak
there, but you can always reboot the bastard every other day ;=)
It's probably due to the DOSish origins of Windows. UNIX always
required an MMU of some sort (Minix being the one exception I can
think of off the top of my head). As a result, UNIX always cleaned
up when a process ended. AmigaDOS, which requires no MMU, is
terrible for slow memory leaks. There's lots of docs about how
to detect leaks and how to estimate what you forgot to give up
by comparing common system structure sizes to your leakages.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
22 Jan
22 Jan
4:33 p.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Julius Sridhar wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Zane H. Healy wrote:
That's why you go with NetBSD.
No, that's why you Just Say No to RedHat. As a RedHat Certified
Engineer, Instructor and Examiner (Woo-Freakin-Hoo), I can say this with
authority:
RedHat has the strangest concept of security I've ever run across.
They close doors that should be open - sendmail refuses connections on
port 25 by default - and leave others wide open. Like running
[unconfigured] apache on every install.
Debian Rulez
Doc
b) When I
got back I discovered some little punk assed bitch had hacked
into my server and it had to be taken off the local network where it sits
for security reasons.
This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD for
your server. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now, and while I think
it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as a server, if I want a stable secure
server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course OpenBSD sucks in that it doesn't support
multiprocessor systems! 
6:29 p.m.
On 2002.01.23 07:33 Doc wrote:
RedHat has the strangest concept of security
I've ever run across.
They close doors that should be open - sendmail refuses connections on
port 25 by default - and leave others wide open. Like running
[unconfigured] apache on every install.
That is the point. If you do a carefull
setup, install fixes, ... you
can make Linux as secure as any *BSD. One of the reasons why I prefere
to use a non-Linux OS on a non-PeeCee machine as firewall, is that the
script kiddys don't know how to hack, but only know how to use the
newest exploit... And of course there is a butload of other reasons to
use *BSD instead of Linux...
Debian Rulez
...if you want to be a LUser
(Linux User) ;-)
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
23 Jan
23 Jan
2:21 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On 2002.01.23 07:33 Doc wrote:
If you don't want script kiddies to be able to use their r00tkitz and
spl017z, just run it on something besides a PeeCee... Debian running on a
68040 mac or DecSTATION, etc, would confuse the hell out of them-
especially if you make the system report it's a peecee in its headers ;-).
Eg. OpenSSH 2.9p1 says it's "OpenSSH 0.1beta5" or "OpenSSH 10.4"
:) That
should confuse them enuf (athough it takes some work - mostly just
re-compiling. 'Just confuse the little jokers.'
-- Pat
RedHat has the strangest concept of security
I've ever run across.
They close doors that should be open - sendmail refuses connections on
port 25 by default - and leave others wide open. Like running
[unconfigured] apache on every install.
That is the point. If you do a carefull
setup, install fixes, ... you
can make Linux as secure as any *BSD. One of the reasons why I prefere
to use a non-Linux OS on a non-PeeCee machine as firewall, is that the
script kiddys don't know how to hack, but only know how to use the
newest exploit... And of course there is a butload of other reasons to
use *BSD instead of Linux...
> Debian Rulez
SLACKWARE RULEZ :P
...if you want to be a LUser (Linux User) ;-)
At least I don't use OS's named after reactions... eg. Wince. (Hey, and
more OT, isn't AIX a bad acronym.. even if it is all AIX and pains?)
--
tschüß,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
12:05 a.m.
FreeBSD is an extremely simple install. And yes, it fully supports multiple
processors.
Yes, I am a FreeBSD zealot.
Jay West
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh(a)aracnet.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Here I Am
think
> b) When I got back I discovered some little punk
assed bitch had hacked
> into my server and it had to be taken off the local network where it
sits
for security
reasons.
This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD for
your server. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now, and while I it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as a server,
if I want a stable
secure
server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course OpenBSD sucks
in that it doesn't
support
multiprocessor systems!
Oh, and yes, I realize you're probably not in the mood for someone
suggesting you switch to a different OS.
Zane
1:06 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Jay West wrote:
FreeBSD is an extremely simple install. And yes, it
fully supports
multiple processors.
Yes, I am a FreeBSD zealot.
Yeah? Well, *my* Oklahoma personalized license plate says "FreeBSD" (for
real). Top that! :-)
--
Jeffrey S. Sharp
jss(a)subatomix.com
8362
days inactive
8370
days old
19 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
dittman＠dittman.net -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
emu＠ecubics.com -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
hans＠Huebner.ORG -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
Huw.Davies＠kerberos.davies.net.au -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jss＠subatomix.com -
pat＠purdueriots.com -
sipke＠wxs.nl -
vance＠ikickass.org -
vaxzilla＠jarai.org -
vcf＠siconic.com -
west＠tseinc.com