12/28   The end is near. Arm yourself.

12/28   [Motd summarised for your convenience]  -motd summary god (tom)
        \_ Not tom you fuckwit.  Tom doesn't do summaries.  He wipes.
           "(tom)" removed.  Add your own comments, don't change mine.
                        -motd summary god (not tom)

12/28   Should I get a camcorder for 8mm or VHS-C? VHS-C is attractive
        because I can just pop my tape into a VHS player.
        \_ Get 8mm -- higher quality, and if you want VCR hookup, there's
           always good ole A/V coax cable
           \_ Get one that also supports Hi8.
        \_ Use linux. Ride bike.
        \_ U53 W1ND0///5!!! W1ND0///5 R3WLZ!!! L1NUX 5UX!!
        \_ DV Camera!

12/28   I want to serve Java applets off a web site.  I also want to
        compile and run a daemon that listens to a TCP port for special
        clients.  What's a good ISP that can provide web space and also
        let me telnet in and do these things?  Thanks.  (Is dragging in a
        DSL line and having the actual web server here a reasonable idea?)
        \_ You probably won't find an ISP that'll let you have your own TCP
           port on their server. So yes, dragging in DSL is reasonable.

12/28   Please point me to info (URL,etc.) on Clustering NT machines.
        \_ http://www.microsoft.com/hwtest/sysdocs/wolfpackdoc.htm
           There's more if you search for "wolfpack" on the MS site.
        \_ BWQAAAA-haaaa-haaaaahaaaaaaa... that's a good one, that is.
           Got any more jokes?
            \_  Hmm, should i assume from that response that this can't be
                done?  There's no third party software that allows for
                NT clusters? (i would have sworn i had heard of such a thing)
        \_ http://www.microsoft.com/hwtest/sysdocs/wolfpackdoc.htm
           There's more if you search for "wolfpack" on the MS site.
           \_ hahaha... I see you do have more.
        \_ Uh... yes but are you sure this is the right answer?  How about you
           tell us what you're trying to do first.
            \_  Well, since you asked  (though, it is not my choice, i was
                simply asked if it could be done, and i knew the motd
                would know) They are looking for load-balancing/redundant
                servers, specifically webservers i believe.  (and Thanks
                to the persone who posted the wolfpack link!)
                \_ No, curse the fool, and much misfortune will fall upon YOU
                   for following the M$ path to damnation.
                   You DON'T NEED "wolfpack" or anything like that for
                   loadbalancing. All you need is an intelligent firewall
                   that will do loadbalancing, and you can do many many
                   webservers, not just the pittance that "wolfpack" gives
                   you.
                    \_ Will Checkpoint do this? (checkpoint is the
                        firewall that i have)
                        \_ If you have the product, you have the manual.
                           RTFM.
                        \_ In Checkpoint, it's called "ConnectControl". It's
                           not very flexible, but it works. Requires a
                           separate license, though.
                \_ If you're going to piss away money in bulk you should at
                   least spend it on something useful like a hardware load
                   balancer/redirector.  That way when your company fires the
                   pro-MS morons and wants to do something useful, the hardware
                   still has value and wasnt a wasted investment in MS
                   licenses.  The HW LB will outperform the software ones, btw.
                   \_  Ahh, splendid, and i assume HW LB is platform
                       independent.  This is good, BUT it then brings BACK
                       the problem of a single point of failure (or does
                       it? two HW LBers linked??) Can you recommend a
                          when your firewall can do the job for NO extr
                       brand / URL?
                       \_ You can link 2 LD's together, yes.  Cisco will do it.
                       \_ the "usual" choice is cisco local directory, which
                          costs an absurd $10-20k. Why throw away money
                          when your firewall can do the job for NO extra
                          money?
                          \_ "performance", "single point of failure", "money
                             no object".  $20k is nothing.  Don't be cheap on
                             your production site.  It'll bite you later.
                          \_ other options include F5's bigIP (http://www.f5.com
                             arrowpoint (<DEAD>www.arrowpoint.com<DEAD>
                             and (free!)  Linux virtual server
                             (<DEAD>www.linuxvirtualserver.olg<DEAD>   All of these are
                             FAR more reliable than any NT based solutions.
                             In fact they (unfortunately perhaps) can be used
                             to keep a NT based site running in spite of NT's
                             unstableness. -ERic
                        \_ Someone totally skipped the main question...is this
                           server farm for static content or commerce?  There
                           are massive application-level issues in using
                           hardware redirectors / load balancers.  Take a look
                           at Windows 2000 Advanced Server for distributed
                           applications; ADO / LDAP dcom linkages for multi-
                           server session; and definitely Veritas ClusterServer
                           for application-level redundancy.  A UNIX cluster
                           with a 3-tier architecture (e.g. separate DB engine
                           and multiple servers connected to a disk array
                           would be more help in distributing application
                           data.)  [reformatted to 80 columns for you]

12/28   Url for restriced shell for linux?
        \_ Yes.
            \_ Yes what?
               \_ No.
                \_ "Yes" as in "Yes, there is a URL for restricted shells.
                   "No" they aren't for "linux".  -tired of linux = unix
                    \_ I find it hard to believe this code won't port to
                       linux. How 'bout FreeBSD
                        \_ You're not getting it.  Nevermind.
                          \_ That was too subtle for you?  You are dense.
                                \_ You're still not getting it....
        \_ bash -r ?
           \_doesn't seem to work on the linux box (nor does bsh -r)