Re: [cobalt-users] telnet access to users?

[Kris Dahl <kris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 1/20/00 2:23 PM, Jeff Lasman at jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
>> There is nothing wrong with people being able to 'snoop' around a server.
> 
> Not true since people have become malicious.  For how many years did the
> recently disclosed majordomo hole exist?  How many others like it are
> currently on your box?
> 
> You're obviously NOT an ISP.  Most ISPs will eventually get hacked.  We
> haven't been yet; we only opened for business the first of this year
> <smile>.  But we expect to be.  Make it hard.  Not easy.

We've had 'secure' machines that have been hacked without any benefit of
telnet access.  I guess I am of the school of thought that it doesn't matter
all that much what minor changes you make (changing the shells out, etc.)
because in the end, it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans.

Good luck, incidentally, in your new venture!
 
>> Personally, I have been getting really turned off of the whole leased/shared
>> server bit.  Its getting SO inexpensive to own and operate your own server
>> that it really starts to make sense.
> 
> Exactly.  So if you need telnet, get your own, disable telnet, and install
> SSH.

Yeah.  I am 100% for that--I do have some clients that lease off of a shared
server.  Trying to get setup with our own private server and have all of our
clients on there.  Also reduces confusion.  Even though most of our clients
are with one hosting company, they are each on diff. servers.  With differnt
distros, different paths, etc.  Can get confusing--like computer vertigo.
Ever worked on a cobalt server for a day, and then come back to a RedHat
machine, then to a BSD box the next day and a Solaris the day after that?
Just the difference between distros is enought to make my head spin.  I've
had to set up some symbolic links on the cobalt server so that I cross
develop on the Qube2 at home and on my RH box at work, etc.

 
>> If its a small-medium site, you can
>> host it on a standard DSL line for less that $100 / mo.
> 
> Sounds low.  Here in Southern California, the lowest-cost "business-class"
> dsl connection I can get is 160 kbps for us$99/month (that's my selling
> price).  With five usable IP#s.  Yes, there are lower classes of service,
> with and without static IP#s, with and without contracts that allow
> servers.  But let's talk being professional here.  Let's not cheat by
> buying an aDSL line designed for home use and putting a server on it.  That
> won't work in the long run anyway; too much bandwidth aggregation first hop
> upstream.


We're up here in the Pacific Northwest--can get USWest business service for
about $115 for 256k-512k.  Several other decent providers offer slightly
better rates--like 512k for the similar route.

Savvis, however, is like $500 for a 'business class' 256k.  Guaranteed QOS
is nice, tho.

>> I can co-located on
>> a 10MB network for less that $200 / mo (for like 5 gigs xfer).
> 
> Our selling price is a bit higher, but with a multiple DS-3 connection, and
> 32 gigabytes of transfer.  We can throw in the RaQ2 with a 7 gig hard drive
> and 128 megs of ram for only a bit more.  Or a RaQ3 for not much more than
> that.

What private peering have you set up?  I'd be interested in co-locating with
you.  This company is the same that we've been dealing with--close to home
in Vancouver.  I've been really happy, and they have a decent route.  I am
not sure what kind of BGP and private peering they've got.  I am happy to
support Cobalt products for my clients, but I require 'heavier iron' for my
own use.  We're into heavy DB stuff, preprocessing, etc.  Even the Raq3
doesn't really cut it for me, so I'd want to put a 2-4U server in there...
contact me offlist if sounds like that might work out.  Figure we'd go thru
about 20-30 gigs a month.
 
>> Its just
>> doesn't make sense to share servers anymore (IMHO).
> 
> Agreed <smile>!

Mo kidding.

>> I'm kinda excited about
>> the Cursoe chips--think instead of having a virtual host, you have a real
>> web server that is no larger than a 3.5" hard drive.  Cheap too.
> 
> That scares me a bit though; how can I compete costwise, and still make a
> living?

Well, it all comes down to bandwidth.  Sell the bandwidth, not the server.
People just plain don't put enough emphasis on how good the provider's
route, different peering agreements, etc. are.  That is the difference
between a mom and pop ISP and a company like InterNAP.

>> I would really like to see cobalt get into the super-micro-server--single,
>> dedicated host per site.  Single Board Computers, etc.
> 
> The lowest end RaQs do this admirably.

Yeah, but I'd like to put a dedicated DB server and a dedicated web server
in one single U form factor.  For the same price as a Raq2 or Raq3
(roughly).

Thanks!
-k