heebiejeebieclu — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:05:59 +0000

Ah, OK. I was just giving my advice, with the help of what my dad says
btw he works for Hewlett Packard

mairving — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:33:01 +0000

heebiejeebieclu wrote: Are you talking about me by any chance? I didn't expect you to take me like an expert.

No, but give me a few minutes. I was talking about Tyler who wrote the article over at PCMech.

openmind — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 09:13:06 +0000

heebiejeebieclu wrote: Are you talking about me by any chance? I didn't expect you to take me like an expert.

I'm 99.999% sure Mairving was referring to the author of the original article.

heebiejeebieclu — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 08:30:41 +0000

Are you talking about me by any chance? I didn't expect you to take me like an expert.

mairving — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:53:29 +0000

That is kind of a joke. The guy that wrote it is only 14 yrs. old and a good and pretty talented kid but it is kind of like writing an article on how to do brain surgery on 5 short pages written by someone who had read about brain surgery. A lot gets left out in the process. There are quite a few other omissions like the fact that you would violate the AUP of most service providers, what to do if step 1 or 2 or 3 doesn't work, how to secure your setup, etc. etc.

I guess that I view a fileserver as something different. To me a fileserver is something that you share files with a certain select group of people with tight permissions and security and redundancy, not having a fileserver available for public use. FTP would certainly be a much better way of sharing files if you wanted to do so in this case.

openmind — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:03:31 +0000

Sorry I'm lost. I though you were intending to serve files from your computer to the Internet. If that's not the case, great.

If you are going to server files to the Internet, i.e. allow people to access your shared files from another computer over the web you will still have security issues to consider.

In addition, being on a dialup connection will really work against you simply as your upstrem speed will only be about 5KB/sec which means that everything will move and download at the speed of a nail on anti-depressants!

**off topic**
That was post number 666 for me. Be afraid, be very afraid!!!

Muuuuuuhhhhaaawaaaaahhhh! :eek:

teammatt3 — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:59:55 +0000

I'm not turning my PC into a hosting server just to put files on it. And with my dial up internet connection I am not too worried about attackers.

heebiejeebieclu — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:21:33 +0000

and it really slows your computer down
"from hare to tortoise"
Even with my super-secure computer I wouldn't do it. I have nortonAntivirus - and my modem mis encrypted and has its own firewall.

OtterBob — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:16:09 +0000

Actually I've never seriously considered turning my PC into a dedicated file server, mostly for the reasons flipper listed. I can keep my PC safe enough for general activity but this is a completely different ballgame. Plus, most of the ISPs I know of don't let you do that, probably for security reasons.

openmind — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 07:36:19 +0000

Interesting read.

I've alwasy being slightly against using your own PC as a server unless you really know the ins and outs of server security very well. The possibility of attack is bad enough for hosts in DC's let alone for home users. Many cable companies in the UK at least, are aslo capping the amount of file transfer their users have. If you serever becomes popular quickly then you could raise their hackles so to speak.

With the prices of dedicated servers now below the $50 level in some places, it is becoming more and more viable to run a dedicated box within a secure DC for minimal cost...