On Feb 6, 2007, at 8:58 PM, Ted Roche wrote:
Correction: Subject 2005 should be 2007 of course.
Ted A time before his man Roche
Ted Roche Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:30 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
I've encountered people who say things like BSD is like Linux,
right?.
And what do you tell them? I've downloaded, installed, configured
*BSD a couple of times. Looks just like a distro-switch to me: things
have funny names and they're in the
Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've downloaded, installed, configured *BSD a couple of times. Looks
just like a distro-switch to me: things have funny names and they're
in the wrong places. The package management system is different from
the one I'm used to.
Hmm, all that can be said
On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Paul Lussier wrote:
Hmm, all that can be said for:
(SunOS,Solaris,Ultrix,True64,HP-UX,...) vs. (*BSD, Linux)
For the most part, UNIX is UNIX regardless of the spelling :)
That's my theory, though my experience is pretty limited. I wonder if
a quick tour of
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 10:38 am, Ted Roche wrote:
That's my theory, though my experience is pretty limited. I wonder if
a quick tour of Why I use Net/Free/Open BSD instead of / along with
Linux could be a good talk. Or a flame war. Or both.
I'd be interested to see a talk like that and
I'd be interested to see a talk like that and perhaps participate in
discussion, but I can hardly lead a presentation. I'm not the BSD guru I
may
pretend to be, but I do use OpenBSD for firewall/router/VPN gateway
infrastructure points though and find it very well suited to those needs.
I
A client with a database-backed LAMP application is considering
moving to a new hosting provider for their system. Surfing the web,
they find all of these $6.95/month deals and can't figure out why
anyone would pay more. I know there are a number of folks on the list
who provide such
A client with a database-backed LAMP application is considering
moving to a new hosting provider for their system. Surfing the
web, they find all of these $6.95/month deals and can't figure out
why anyone would pay more. I know there are a number of folks on
the list who provide such
I've used dailyrazor for myself( shared account) and for a friends business(
dedicated server). Not perfect but decent access.
Selected because of reasonable price( not the cheapest), their knowledge of
tomcat server.
Downside - tech support is not right away.
- Original Message
So, what are folks doing, and why?
I don't have any experience with places that do VMs.
As has already been stated, a shared webhosting is not likely to meet a
number of your requirements.
I have shared hosting with Dreamhost (and have for years). They also do
dedicated.
Shared:
On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:22, Paul Lussier wrote:
Didn't RedHat spell it 'httpd' at one point?
It's always been spelled 'httpd'. I seem to remember UIUC installing
theirs in /usr/local/etc/httpd . Over the years most of mine lived
at /usr/local/apache/bin/httpd until it got modular and
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 12:44 pm, Bill McGonigle wrote:
It's always been spelled 'httpd'. I seem to remember UIUC installing
I used to be able to 'ps ax | grep apache' because of pathing - with
Redhat's in /usr/sbin/httpd you can't do that anymore - maybe that's
what you're recalling.
Travis Roy wrote:
From what I've seen most of these $10/month deals fail for some of
your requirements.
I don't have experience with them myself, but from the information
available on their website it seems WebFaction offers much more than you
indicate below. For $9.50 a month (less if
You are already getting replies, but here's more.
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 11:44 -0500, Ted Roche wrote:
A client with a database-backed LAMP application is considering
moving to a new hosting provider for their system. Surfing the web,
they find all of these $6.95/month deals and can't
I seem to remember from the MythTV presentation last month that there
was some dual-tuner HDTV box that then output to an Ethernet stream and
was supported by MythTV. Did anyone remember the name of it?
-Mark
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
QQ
As in, took HDMI/DVI signals and streamed them? I didn't know there
was such a beast.
On 2/7/07, Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seem to remember from the MythTV presentation last month that there
was some dual-tuner HDTV box that then output to an Ethernet stream and
was
Was it this?
http://www.silicondust.com/wiki/products/hdhomerun
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
On 02/07/2007 02:10 PM, Michael ODonnell wrote:
Was it this?
http://www.silicondust.com/wiki/products/hdhomerun
Looks like it, thanks!
-Mark
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
Quoting Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I seem to remember from the MythTV presentation last month that there
was some dual-tuner HDTV box that then output to an Ethernet stream and
was supported by MythTV. Did anyone remember the name of it?
The HD Homerun?
-Mark
-derek
--
I'd also very strongly recommend checking out site on WebHostingTalk.com
- it's a hangout for industry insiders and those who do a lot of web
hosting.
Take it easy,
David Berube
Berube Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(603)-485-9622
http://www.berubeconsulting.com/
Python wrote:
You are already
On Feb 7, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Python wrote:
You are already getting replies, but here's more.
But everyone has different answers! Better to have many options to
evaluate. Thanks, all, for the ideas!
Ted Roche
Ted Roche Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
On Feb 7, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Mark Komarinski wrote:
I seem to remember from the MythTV presentation last month that there
was some dual-tuner HDTV box that then output to an Ethernet stream
and
was supported by MythTV. Did anyone remember the name of it?
There's lots of notes from the
On Feb 7, 2007, at 13:20, Neil Joseph Schelly wrote:
I think that was a Debian-based vs. RedHat-based distro joke/
reference.
Over my head, I'm sure. :)
Debian packages of Apache call it apache.
In the process list or package name? Paul was talking 'ps'. I guess
you could modify the
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:16:18PM -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On Feb 7, 2007, at 13:20, Neil Joseph Schelly wrote:
I think that was a Debian-based vs. RedHat-based distro joke/
reference.
Over my head, I'm sure. :)
Debian packages of Apache call it apache.
In the process list or
On 2/7/07, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apache is still spelled the same way.
Didn't RedHat spell it 'httpd' at one point?
Actually, the Apache Software Foundation spells it httpd. Nobody
paid any attention until Red Hat changed the package names. Now
nobody but Red Hat pays any
On 2/7/07, Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seem to remember from the MythTV presentation last month that there
was some dual-tuner HDTV box that then output to an Ethernet stream and
was supported by MythTV. Did anyone remember the name of it?
Others have already posted the
26 matches
Mail list logo
