Date: Sun, 2 Apr 00 19:58:03 EST From: Dwight McKay (The Moderator) Reply-To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #10 To: Suns-at-Home-List Suns-at-Home Digest Sun, 2 Apr 00 Volume 13 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: armor, ftpd CheckPoint FW-1/pirated (2 msgs) Need help choosing 24bit frame buffer. sunos4, sendmail, and unix (Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #9) SunOS for a Force CPU-5/CE ??? Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #9 (2 msgs) +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Submissions: suns-at-home@net-kitchen.com | | Requests: suns-at-home-request@net-kitchen.com | | WWW Archive access: http://www.net-kitchen.com/~sah | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:35:23 -0500 From: "Bruce Clark" Subject: To: I am running Solaris-7 Media OS on an i86 system. I am having difficulties getting the modem to work .I have installed on ttya via admintool but each time I run the tip command the message "all ports busy" is displayed.I am using a US Robotics 33.6 Voice Internal set at com1, IRQ 5. Also it seems very difficult to obtain Solaris drivers for i86 hardware. Can you help? Thank You=20 Bruce Clark - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:08:24 PST From: "v bender" Subject: armor, ftpd To: suns-at-home@net-kitchen.com --original message "armor". Please, give more details. TCP Wrappers is it's own package, what else comes with "armor"? "armor" is a script that closes many security holes that are open by default on Solaris. It also installs TCP wrappers. Go to Lance Spitzner's page @ http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/ and look for it there. It is a strongly recommended step before instaling Check Point FireWall-1, but works well whether you slap a firewall on the machine or not. There's just no way I'm putting a Solaris machine out in the wild (read: the 'Net) without applying "armor" first; it does all the mundane security things for you in a fast and efficient way; it's basically just a time saver, and being a full time sys-admin, I sure can use the breaks. As far as a good ftpd, I used to think that wuftpd was the best thing since sliced bread. When I saw what ncftpd can do and how much faster it is, I started to regard wuftpd as junk. I wouldn't think twice about running anything but ncftpd. So much from me. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:22:21 PST From: "v bender" Subject: CheckPoint FW-1/pirated To: William.Salmon@cna.com -- original message: Second, The recommendation to get a pirated copy of Firewall 1 should be left for the "alt" newsgroups, and definately not for an "at home" list such as this. I'm not saying I am without guilt by any means, just that I would never suggest or recommend piracy for personal (or business, for that matter)use. Especially FW-1, which is next to impossible to crack, and has been reported to report its presence on the internet to prevent piracy. Let's try to keep this list clean in the future, and if you do have a crack for FW-1, I'll look for you in the newsgroups. ;) Wes -- I don't have a pirated copy of FW-1 either, though I wish I did! You will notice that: a) nowhere do I endorse the notion that I have it. b) that what I wrote is just what it is - a recommendation. I fail to see how it makes a list "clean" or "dirty". No software was offered nor asked for. c) You will also notice in the original post, that I actually wrote that it shold be no problem to acquire the software via legal means. And as far as looking for me in the newsgroups, I haven't started learning SPARC assembler - YET, so cracking the stuff will have to hold off until I have enough time to master it on the Sun platform. Please don't contact me for any pirated software - because I don't have any. Thanks! On a final note, I would like to add that making a recommendation is by no means illegal, nor does it make a list "dirty", but this is in my opinion purely subjective. Another thing -- nothing is impossible to crack. It's a PR scheme I've heard so many times it's sickening. If warez were impossible to crack, companies wouldn't have to resort to "legal means". So much from me. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:10:55 -0600 From: "Salmon,William E.,Wes" Subject: CheckPoint FW-1/pirated To: "'v bender'" I was not meaning to hit you personally, just to put a stop on any kind of that activity before things get out of control. It's easy for things to get off topic and lead somewhere else. FYI, a friend of mine has a keygen for FW-1, which they use semi-legit to get past the two week wait for Checkpoint to respond with the correct key. I have heard that the product reports back home when it is connected, so it really is risky to use, unless you block those ports beforehand or have a valid license anyway. The high cost of FW-1 is way too much for anyone at home to justify anyway, so pirating is always a concern for home use. Besides, there are too many free firewall/proxy/etc products thanks to linux, many of which are available for solaris also to bother with all the trouble. Netmax has a very user-friendly linux-based firewall distribution for $70. (runs on PC's only) Later, Wes - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:17:40 +1100 (EST) From: Craig Dewick Subject: Need help choosing 24bit frame buffer. To: Dwight McKay > > Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:51:09 +0100 > From: "Lyndon Fletcher (UAB)" > Subject: Need help choosing 24bit frame buffer. > To: "'Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com'" > > Hi, > I have a Sun 5 and was considering upgrading the CG6 to a 24 bit > frame buffer. I have read the FB FAQ but am still a little confused. I > wondered if anyone here would comment? > > My understanding of all of the available 24 bit FB cards is this. > > 1) S24 -- designed for the SS5 but fairly rare and not widely supported outside of > Solaris (netBSD will probably be my OS of choice.) I've never seen one, but I believe it is referred to in SunOS as a cg12. > 2) ZX --- built for the SS10 but can be used in a SS5 (?) More > commonly supported. And these produce *large* ammounts of heat, and they're not supported since SunOS 5.7 was released. > 3) Creator SBUS. It is unclear if this card uses just an SBUS or an SBUS and some other > kind of slot. I could use clarification if this works on SS5. No such thing as an Sbus version of the Creator cards - as far as I'm aware the Creator series are UPA-bus only cards. > 4) Parallax cards -- will work but support is poor as Parallax is no more... There's also the MGX+ from Southland Media but support for it is lacking. You are better off moving to a Sparc 20 so you can install a VSIMM and use the native SX framebuffer... Regards, Craig. -- Craig Dewick. Send email to "cdewick@lios.apana.org.au" Point a web browser at 'http://lios.apana.org.au/~cdewick/sun_shack.html' to access my archive of Sun information and links to other places. For info about Sun Ripened Kernels, go to "http://www.sunrk.com.au" - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:38:00 -0500 (EST) From: woods@most.weird.com (Greg A. Woods) Subject: sunos4, sendmail, and unix (Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #9) To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:33:07 -0500 > From: adh@an.bradford.ma.us (Sandwich Maker) > Subject: sunos4, sendmail, and unix > To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com > > all in all i agree. [net,open]bsd are really coming along but they > are still struggling to come up to the level sunos4 was at 5+ years > ago. Either your two statements are in disagreement or you forgot to put a whole bunch of qualifiers on the latter one. NetBSD (and OpenBSD) are light-years ahead of SunOS-4 in many respects. Certainly they are still struggling to get device driver support up to snuff but what can you expect from a bunch of volunteers, most of whom never worked for Sun, and many of whom are working from incomplete knowledge of the hardware design details. They have made absolutely stunning progress given the hurdles they've been forced to clear. Other differences that have been cited on this list in the past are often more due to differences in points of view and expectations, not in actual quality or modernity of design or whatever. In fact in terms of quality alone both OpenBSD and NetBSD are literally light years ahead of SunOS-4 with many thousands and thousands of bug fixes that are clearly still issues with SunOS-4 (often because SunOS was based on the very same original code the BSDs were derived from!). -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP Planix, Inc. ; Secrets of the Weird - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:29:04 +0100 From: "Rainer Welling (EED)" Subject: SunOS for a Force CPU-5/CE ??? To: suns-at-home@net-kitchen.com Hi, I'm the proud owner of a Force CPU-5/CE board, an embedded version of a Sparc 5 usually applied in rack systems. It was manufactured by Force Computers Inc. My problem with this hardware is now, that it doesn't accept Solaris 7 as operating system! I tried to boot it several times, in different environments with different boards, but I got always the same error message "Watchdog Reset" (shown 5-10sec after invoking 'boot' command! I think now that my assumption wasn't correct, that the label SPARC stands for compatibility to generic SunOS software in this particular case. The question is now, does anyone know about limitations on using OS sw for CPU-5/CE boards, or even better has someone a working operating system for that type of SPARC HW. With regards, Rainer Welling - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:59:13 GMT From: brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk (BrandonButterworth) Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #9 To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com > I'd especially like docs on the bpp and lpvi > hardware for SPARCs and the sc and ALM cards for VME. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/brandon/ppc1/ for one of the parallel port chips they used to use brandon - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:29:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Anthony A. D. Talltree" Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #9 To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com >1) S24 -- designed for the SS5 but fairly rare and not widely supported >outside of Solaris (netBSD will probably be my OS of choice.) Abysmally slow. >2) ZX --- built for the SS10 but can be used in a SS5 (?) More commonly >supported. IIRC these present a high load to the bus, so you may not be able to use other Sbus devices in the same machine. - ------------------------------ End of Suns-at-Home Digest ******************************