 | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Steve (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Are you sure about what you're running? They purposely don't release the source code, under the explanation that they want to keep the analysis pure. Although I'd be inclined to trust them since they're at a university reputed for good (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Yeah, I hear you. I'm not too worried, tho. I have ghost images of all my important PC's. (...) Oh, I don't have that many at home. I have that many at work. I only have 4 at home. Couldn't have more than 5 without running a proxy server, (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Don't bother with a proxy server - it's too much bother - I messed around with Wingate and everything needed special settings. The solution is a gateway - I use SyGate, basically all machines running through the gateway on a single machine can (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Oh, I wouldn't bother with Wingate, although it is a decent enough package for two computers. If I do it I'll either use MS Proxy for NT Server (practicaly since I would be doing hands-on stuff that might help me with the Proxy class should I (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) That's why I said use Sygate :-) (...) If I knew what you was talking about /-) (26 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Well, it doesn't really matter until I get more than 5 machines at home. I have an ISDN router from work with 4 ports, connected to another 4 port hub. That gives me a current maximum of 6 machines connected at one time without adding another (...) (26 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Yegh. Sounds bloody awful. (...) That works. Buy an old 386 with at least 8 megs and 100 megs, need no fulltime screen, keyboard, floppy, or CD drive. And it works quite well. barney:~# uptime 10:55pm up 43 days, 10:50, 1 user, load average: (...) (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Bloody awful but also bloody useful. I'm actually going to get my boss to send me to a new Linux admin class I got an e-mail about, but, for the most part, MS certification (and experience) is a lot more valuable where I live than Linux (...) (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) True, unfortunately. linux experience will get you jobs in the genertal unix field as well, though. (...) 386DX/40, 12 meg, 100 meg, cheapass Netcard. And it runs sendmail for me, so I can have as many email addresses as I want ;) (...) kill (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Maybe, but I don't *want* a job playing with Unix all day. (...) Yep, definitely has its advantages. 'Course, I already have as many as I want, and a lot more than I could really use. I don't really like the thought of depending on a machine (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| Mike Stanley (cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com) wrote: : Carbon 60 <carbon60@bigfoot.com> wrote: : >Mike Stanley wrote: : >> Oh, I don't have that many at home. I have that many at work. I only : >> have 4 at home. Couldn't have more than 5 without running a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) named? Oh, yeah, I've been meaning to implement BIND as a caching nameserver, but it works ok without one, so I haven't got round to it yet. Other than that, Yeah, it works nice. Jasper (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: SETI@Home?
|
| (...) Get a UPS. Real nice in power failures. :-) Cheers, (24 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| |
