XxMaNsOnX

Well.. If you're in a corporate enviroment, Office XP is worth the upgrade. It has a lot of collaboration features, which is a definate plus. Past that though, it's not all that. If money's not an issue, I'd get it. See http://www.microsoft.com/office/evaluation...pth/compare.asp

Bah, it's happened before, what about this date: January 20, 2001 at approximatly 20:01 Or if we're allowed to do it Month/Day, and not Day/Month, how about this: October 10, 1010, at approximatly 10:10 Or October 21, 1021 at approximatly 10:21. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like this has happened many many times before. Which magaziene was it? Unless it was Scientific American, they may have no clue what they're talking about.

Cause really, that's the best way to learn. If you really want to learn Linux, I say check out the Linux From Scratch (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/) site and build your own Linux system. Use nothing but the console. READ THE DOCS. You can do it, and you'll learn so much in the process. It's what I did. But also, what if X breaks? Or Apache stops working? If he's never even seen a bash prompt, how will he know what to do? He needs to learn basic commands, and how it all works to really do good. By learning that, he will also learn how to do basic things to keep the system secure and running correctly. He needs to know how to modify a configuration file. Or know how to use the compiler. Or do any thing which ammounts to a rock solid Linux system. Sure, you could just install Linux and stick with the GUI, and probably just be fine. But you're only scratching the surface of Linux's power. Not to mention you can work faster in the console... (Let me know if you want examples, but this post is long enough)

Really though, you don't need a GUI to administer a Linux machine; just use ssh to login remotely. The console is your friend.. There is also VNC, which is exactly like remote desktop. Webmin is just a way of administering services via a web browser. I've never really used either though beyond just playing around. I'm just a console guy

Sure, you can do this. But anyone with a clue will just write a quick perl script to put it into sane HTML, and then use something like 'indent' to put it into good formatting as well. Like I said, security by obscurity is no security at all.

Well, it depends on what you want to do... At the minimum, you probably need a domain name and 2 DNS servers. You can do your own DNS if you have 2 static IP's (or 1 DNS server and do one yourself if you just have 1 static). Or just get a subdomain from someone. If you have a dynamic IP, you need some DNS server which does dynamic DNS updates... Past that, I would say go with Linux and Apache, but you probably have your mind on IIS with WinXP.. Just make sure you patch often, I'm sure the next Codered/Nimda is only a short time away Really, that's all you need.. if it's low volume, 56k is fine unless you're serving a lot of graphics or other large things. I used to host a web server off a 56k a few years ago. Post more what you're looking to do and I'll try and guide you on how to do it.

You can't encrypt it. This is the problem with modern IP thinkers. They feel like they SHOULD be able to do things like this. Code is supposed to be free. Things are supposed to be built on OPEN STANDARDS. You seem to think otherwise. I would REFUSE to browse any site which even tries such tactics; they are thinking in all the wrong directions. There are some major problems with all of those 'suggestions'. First, any web site which uses java script to disable right clicking should just be left. It's such a usability problem, and SO simple to get around. Not everyone uses IE. Not everyone uses Windows. Not everyone uses x86 computers. You can not stop anything without having physical control of the hardware. It's almost as bad as real player. They try and have a way in which you can't save the stream. Yet they just make it obscure. And anyone knows security through obscurity just doesn't work. All of those suggestions are a usability nightmare...

If using NAT, then you need to do tricks to use a protocol which requires you receving a connection. Basically, NAT works when you send a packet (Either starting a TCP connection (SYN packet) or an arbitrary UDP packet.) it records it, then mangles it to change the source address to whatever IP address you have assigned for the NAT router. It also changes the source IP to one not used on the NAT router, and one usually very high. When it receives a response, it looks at the destination port, and then matches that to a table which then mangles it back to put the destination IP of the sending computer, and also changes the destination port back. That is how you start a connection through a NAT router. Now, many things require you to be the one LISTENING for the connection. Most likely, (though I don't know the MSN protocol) it makes the person receiving the file listen for a connection. Well, your computer binds to the port and all is good, but when the sender tries to send a file, the NAT router has never heard of that connection before. It's not in the table, it doesn't know where to go, so it drops the packet and most likely sends some form of error back. To be able to receive files depends on what type of router you're using for NAT. If you're using a linksys type router, you're out of luck. If you're using Linux though, you will be glad to know there are many NAT modules for working with many protocols. The way they work is they listen to the protocol, and find out what port you will be listening to. They then add that to the table, so when the sender sends the packet, it forwards them on to you. It's actually much more advanced than this, but this is the basics. Such modules exist (from memory) for IRC DCC, Quake, FTP, and many others. The thing is, it has to KNOW about the protocol to be able to do this. Luckily, writing one of these modules isn't too difficult, though that would require another thread Otherwise, to actually RECEIVE connections, you can't be using NAT, and need multiple IP addresses, or a small subnet. Well, unless the port in which it receives connections is constant, then you can just add some forwarding rules. And to do that I believe even a cheap ol Linksys can do it. Hope that helps.

Ah, yeah. Their priority servers are quite faster, but just use a mirror, there are hundreds. Check out http://www.redhat.com/mirrors.html

What do you mean by 'open'? By definition, Open means there is an application that has bind()'ed itself to the port. But some port scanners may say 'Open' and mean that it isn't being blocked in some way. This would happen if it gets any response from the SYN packet, regardless if it's a SYN/ACK (Open) or a RST packet (Port is closed) or an ICMP PORT_UNREACHABLE message (Closed, or possibly blocked at a router/firewall, or just a s***ty TCP/IP stack). No response at all means either the host is down (in which a router should hopefully send an ICMP DEST_UNREACHABLE message) or it is being blocked by a router/firewall, or by the target itself (Software firewall) It may be that your network administrator or ISP is doing some redirrection, or it could be any number of things. So here is what you do. If your using WinXP, your in luck, it has a decent unix-style telnet client. Open a DOS prompt and type: telnet localhost 21 If it connects, something is actually running locally. Perhaps a trojan or virus or just an FTP daemon someone installed. Do the same thing for the telnet port: telnet localhost 23 If the port is in fact closed on your machine, you should get something like: Connecting To localhost...Could not open connection to the host, on port 21. No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. If it is closed on your machine, then your network admin/ISP is the culprit, and then there is nothing you can do other than talk to them. If you need more help, private message me and I'll give assistance as needed. And by the way, for the thread, any software firewall is good as a last line of defense, but nothing beats a well configured hardware based firewall. Check out OpenBSD (http://www.openbsd.org), which is probably the best OS to use as a firewall. With bridge/filtering support, you can make a firewall that is completely inaccessible except at the ethernet level.. This makes the best security around. But then that would require a whole other thread for discussion

That's good to hear. If/When you use RedHat/Debian, and need any help, feel free to drop me a line. I'll give ya a hand

FthrJack, What was it pausing at while booting? If it took that long, it could probably only be one thing: sendmail, which is notorious for holding up a boot if it can't resolve a hostname. It could be any network application if it's trying to lookup some hostname and you have no network access... You can just add the host to /etc/hosts and it won't need network access to look it up. Though you said you switched distributions, so it's probably pointless now... At least it wasn't RedHat or Debian that was causing your problems

Ah. Having dug a little deeper I not only found a higher quality version for my full screen delight, I've also found that it was staged (I figured; the guy is smiling when they smash it). Check out http://www.lantrocity.com for links to higher quality versions, and http://www.lantrocity.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000989.html for some info. But it wouldn't surprise me if it was real. After all, the hate of cheaters is great. If there wasn't a video, how would you prove that it happened? I for one would be telling the police it never took place. What would the guy do if the 300 witnesses say they didn't see a thing? I also wouldn't let him go peacefully, I'd smash his s***, then smash his face in... Of course, I'd need proof of cheating, rather than just a suspicion. Still, I love it! Pure gold!

I just have to say that this is the best thing I've ever seen, period. Thank you! This needs to go on slashdot or something [b:d7fdd9f264]I HATE CHEATERS[/size:d7fdd9f264][/b:d7fdd9f264] (even though I only play quake3arena) :assblast :blueteam :mince :aug ::mirco:: :flasmer: ::hang:: :fyou :behead

Hmm, While I wouldn't use System Restore if the data was critical, I've had no problems with it. Have used it to roll back driver installs, software installs, and mess ups on my part. I like it. Works for me