On 2001.04.16 17:21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:47:14 -0400 > From: Jerry Human <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Networked DSL > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > But use a switch instead of a hub. You'll get better throughput > with a > > switch. > > Bummer, all I have right now is a hub and the nic's for all my boxes. > Could this > be setup so a switch could be added later when the budget permits? Yup. Use the hub. If you get a switch later, so much the better. > > > The RH box can also be set up as a Samba server so that the printer > you have > > attached to your Linux box can be used by the Windoze boxes. > Directory > > sharing can also be done as well. > > Are you saying that Samba has to go on the box connected to the > internet? > Wouldn't that 'weaken' security a little? I was thinking I could put > Samba on > one of the networked RH boxes and serve the Windows box from there. I agree with you on this one, Jerry. My firewall doesn't have Samba running, although I do use Samba on my LAN. I have the luxury of having an old 486 that is dedicated to being a firewall - it doesn't do anything else, doesn't have much of anything installed and doesn't offer any services beyond ip masq for the LAN. Since you're doing the same thing, it doesn't make sense to put anything else on the firewall. With the recent LPRng exploit, I wouldn't even put a network-available printer on the box. Anything extra is just one more thing you might miss an update for... My $.02 _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
