Aqua-Soft Forumshey everyone... while i'm not the greatest programmer, themer, icon creator, i would like to help by being able to mirror high-demand files on my computer when i can... can someone just help me out with this, e.g. what software do i need to do this, is there anything i need to do (or should do) to my xp as well, say for security reasons, etc.? not very fluent in setting up a home server...
Using My Computer As A Server
i tihnk the first thing is, whats your connection speed, and your bandwidth a month fro myour ISP.. as i bet it would get hogged alot from all the people here acceesing the server
-bolero
well if u're having a server all you need is a spare computer running linux with apache. I think thats what its called
Well, If you are running XP HOME, its illegal to run a server. I dont care about EULAs, but you may.
What do you need? You need a "server" program. If you are just serving files for download, look at an FTP server. PROFTPD is my favorite.
If you want to server websites, you need an HTTP server. I (and everyone else) likes APACHE.
apache.org
proftpd.net
They are both easy to set up on windows. Install them, and stick your files in the proper "directory". The installation should tell you where.
You can then access the server by typing in your local IP address (127.0.0.1).
Others can access your server by using your public IP address. In a console, type "ipconfig" to get your IP.
i'm not sure of the bandwidth, it's cable service, 768kb down/ 512kb up. as far as the hogging up, this is why i said when i can do it, i will. if i notice that i can't even get onto my email, then i'll have to stop it... otherwise, i'd like to give it a try.
Originally posted by wookietv@Nov 18 2003, 04:44 PMi'm not sure of the bandwidth, it's cable service, 768kb down/ 512kb up. as far as the hogging up, this is why i said when i can do it, i will. if i notice that i can't even get onto my email, then i'll have to stop it... otherwise, i'd like to give it a try.
You might want to read the fine print in the contract to see if there is a limit. Or you can contact your ISP. Make sure of this because they can charge you an arm and a leg for every MB you exceed the limit.
i'll take a look for the contract to see if it mentions it, not even sure if i still have it, may have smoked it or something...
@contra---i took a look at the ProFTPD, unfortunately, windows is not a supported platform for it:
AIX BSD/OS Cygwin*
DG/UX Digital Unix FreeBSD*
HP/UX IRIX* Linux for IBM S/390, zSeries
Linux* Mac OS X*+ NetBSD
OpenBSD SCO Solaris*
SunOS
my goal is to only serve files from my home computer... not websites. really only when there is a need to get a much publicised program/file and all of the existing mirrors are running real slow or have reached their limit.
so basically all i have to do is search around some places for an FTP server?
edit--nevermind, i didn't know cygwin was a unix emulator for windows... i'll give that a shot... thanks
Originally posted by contrasutra@Nov 18 2003, 11:41 PMIf you want to server websites, you need an HTTP server. I (and everyone else) likes APACHE.
Does the fact that I like IIS 5 and 6 more than Apache make me a nobody? 
not at all stevie... there are plenty of other things that do that job for you 
Originally posted by Stevie BM@Nov 18 2003, 07:13 PMDoes the fact that I like IIS 5 and 6 more than Apache make me a nobody?
According to netcraft, 70% of web servers run APACHE, and only about 10% run IIS.
So yes, you're a nobody.
Be very carefull about your cable access, almost 100% have rules that say you cannot run a server from your access, and they monitor ports on their bank of ip address's. If you they catch you, you can be sure they have a no tolerance policy, which means immediate termination and ban from thier service for life. I have personally seen this occur to friends/co-workers who thought they would never get caught. It took less then 2 weeks before the cable companies legal dept made rounds. I have 3 friends who now have to use dial-up, because DSL and/or Wireless access is not available in their area, and the cable company ban them from not just Internet access, but cable programming as well for life.
Just make sure you don't get yourself in trouble. :woot: :goku's job: :woot: >.< :rant: :6 :moon:
hmmm... interesting take on the situation... on one hand, i can help my community with mirroring files... on the other hand i get to keep watching 'the simpsons' and '24'. well, we know where that decision is taking me... i might just do it to learn how now, but from what you said, i may not make it live. maybe when the season of '24' ends i'll actually turn it on and try my luck, as at that point i'll be moving a few months away (over 1000 miles) and have a different cable co.
Originally posted by contrasutra@Nov 19 2003, 12:28 AMAccording to netcraft, 70% of web servers run APACHE, and only about 10% run IIS.
So yes, you're a nobody.
But you, of all people, should know that mass market acceptance doesn't mean it's necessarily a better product... :6
Originally posted by Stevie BM@Nov 19 2003, 08:49 AMBut you, of all people, should know that mass market acceptance doesn't mean it's necessarily a better product... :6
but in this case the mass market aceptance of APACHE is due to the incredible amount of exploits and software bugs found in IIS.
Serv-U isn't a bad server. I think BulletProof makes a server software too. If you are worried about bandwidth you should be able to place a cap on upload speed and number of users so no one slows you down.
Good idea bud, but you're doing a lot of work for such slow bandwidth.
I've been wanting to do the same for a while. I just don't have the motivation to begin it. I was talking with Shak from AXP about it.
I run ftpd & httpd at work. So that's already good to go. As well, I have a 200TB sand at my disposle. and, ontop of that, we have an OC48 as we sit on IUPUI's back bone. I connect into a 1000mbps hub, which connects into FIBER directly to the OC48. I've pulled files off the internet at ~15mbps. So I have more then enough stroage, I have more then enough bandwidth, and I have the technical "know-how". The only thing I lack are the files.
If anyone has a large collection of aqua files, and wants to try to help start this little project, PM me, and I'll give you my e-mail address, or the FTPD on which you can upload them.
Originally posted by Telmo@Nov 19 2003, 02:50 PMbut in this case the mass market aceptance of APACHE is due to the incredible amount of exploits and software bugs found in IIS.
1) It was a joke
2) If IIS is so insecure, why is it that IIS 6 has been found in numerous independant tests to be nye on unbreakable compared to Apache (for example, over the course of a months test, an IIS 6 web server wasn't broken into at all, compared to Apache's 400+ break-ins).
I'll admit - IIS 5/5.1 in it's default state is not as secure as Apache, but if you actually spend a little time configuring it, it can be just as secure.
Also, it's worth noting that most of the "exploits and software bugs" that IIS servers are victim to are bugs in Windows, and not in IIS. Windows with Apache would still suffer from most of them. Also, "exploits" are usually based on default configurations of IIS 5
Originally posted by Deleted@Nov 19 2003, 10:06 AMGood idea bud, but you're doing a lot of work for such slow bandwidth.
I've been wanting to do the same for a while. I just don't have the motivation to begin it. I was talking with Shak from AXP about it.
I run ftpd & httpd at work. So that's already good to go. As well, I have a 200TB sand at my disposle. and, ontop of that, we have an OC48 as we sit on IUPUI's back bone. I connect into a 1000mbps hub, which connects into FIBER directly to the OC48. I've pulled files off the internet at ~15mbps. So I have more then enough stroage, I have more then enough bandwidth, and I have the technical "know-how". The only thing I lack are the files.
If anyone has a large collection of aqua files, and wants to try to help start this little project, PM me, and I'll give you my e-mail address, or the FTPD on which you can upload them.
You are a warez kiddie's wet dream.
Originally posted by Xer0@Nov 19 2003, 09:11 AMYou are a warez kiddie's wet dream.
Ya, hah. I don't whore out thought. But I'll leeeeech 
I have tons of Aqua files, but a lot of them I have modded to suit my needs so that I don't even know what is what anymore. Just go around and start archiving stuff you find in posts now, because the links always go down. Like that one for the Trillian iChat emoticons. Still can't find them.
Originally posted by Stevie BM@Nov 19 2003, 10:10 AM2) If IIS is so insecure, why is it that IIS 6 has been found in numerous independant tests to be nye on unbreakable compared to Apache (for example, over the course of a months test, an IIS 6 web server wasn't broken into at all, compared to Apache's 400+ break-ins).
I'll admit - IIS 5/5.1 in it's default state is not as secure as Apache, but if you actually spend a little time configuring it, it can be just as secure.
Also, it's worth noting that most of the "exploits and software bugs" that IIS servers are victim to are bugs in Windows, and not in IIS. Windows with Apache would still suffer from most of them. Also, "exploits" are usually based on default configurations of IIS 5
Independant test financed by Microsoft or by organizations funded by Microsoft, there was a big article about this topic a while back in SlashDot. During those test IIS was completely locked down while Apache was "out of the box", also they were not able to break into Apache, they used flaws in 3rd party modules (mod_php) flaws that as usually happen with OpenSource were fixed in matter of hours once they were discovered.
Originally posted by Telmo@Nov 19 2003, 08:40 PMIndependant test financed by Microsoft or by organizations funded by Microsoft, there was a big article about this topic a while back in SlashDot. During those test IIS was completely locked down while Apache was "out of the box", also they were not able to break into Apache, they used flaws in 3rd party modules (mod_php) flaws that as usually happen with OpenSource were fixed in matter of hours once they were discovered.
Yeah, I often find that info on Slashdot is completely unbiased towards linux 
Well, the reports I've read weren't funded by Microsoft, and it was carried out over a period of a month, with Apache on RedHat Linux, with J2EE. RedHat were given a month to secure a web application and the servers which they were running it on, as were Microsoft. The thing is, MS had a disadvantage, in that the sample app was written in J2EE, so they had to port the app to .Net, too...
The flaws (isn't it odd how they're called "flaws" in any non-MS stuff and "exploits" or "bugs" in MS stuff?) that were found in the non-MS setup ranged from "flaws" (or security holes, if you prefer) in the J2EE app itself, all the way down to flaws in Linux's handling of the HTTP traffic.
It's worth noting that the people who secured the systems were the manufacturers of the products in question... That would suggest one of two things - RedHat don't have a clue about how to secure their own products or Win2K3/IIS6/.Net was more secure than RedHat/Apache/J2EE.
I'm not going to argue this any more. Any self-respecting non-zealot knows that there are always advantages and disadvantages to both "sides of the coin"... Even contra acknowledges that fact...
I guess I should point out that I am mainly a Solaris user.. not linux 
and yes you are right there is always two side of the coin, in my case multiple sides of the coin