[Sussex] Network problem

[John Crowhurst]

> The problem with VNC is I don't want anyone but for me to know the
> passwords.  VNC isn't the best solution in all applications.  It falls
> down if using on NT 4 system as doesn't run before password entry.
> Mainly down to NT 4 way of working.  Which our main servers are.  As
> such we use an KVM for in viewing and operating them.

If you wanted it secure, you'd have to wrap it in a ssh tunnel, I'm not
sure if they have implemented a secure password version yet. I'm sure
there is a version (like the tightvnc.com version to give better
compression)

If you have a lot of windows machines to admin, it would pay to install a
dedicated 'terminal server' linux box on the local network, with the sole
job of SSH tunnel security and VNC local access to the WinNT boxes. You
could configure this as the router and firewall, and filter the VNC ports
from the external interface.

If you want to go that serious though, look at the possibility of remote
power bars that can be controlled from the Linux box to physically power
cycle the WinNT boxes when they get into a complete lockup state.

If you install the VNC server as a service, it will start on boot. It will
even allow you to send Ctrl-Alt-Del to the machine for login purposes.
Bear in mind that Windows NT is only single user, so you can't have
multiple logins (as different users) with VNC.

> Which brings me on to another issue with Microsoft I don't see any need
> to get Windows 2000/2003 Server when NT is serving our needs fine.  If
> we where going to update the servers I would probably go for some Linux,
> mainly due to insane costs from Micro$oft.   We have some people who do
> very serious work using Windows 95, but I don't see point in getting my
> licences for them so they can have Windows 2000.  It works and works
> fine.

The Microsoft model is a constant upgrade path, its the only way they can
survive, by adding extra features that you wouldn't normally need. XP has
firewall and VNC for example, and OutHouse 2K has file extension
filtering. Of course these features are deliberately brain-damaged in some
way, so that you need to replace it with the next version that will fix
some (well known) issue.

> Now I could spend the money and upgrade but just can not for my life see
> any point in do that and that not because I wouldn't be able to get the
> money to do it.  I just think its just an waste of time.

If you see any possible need to upgrade, if you have a management team
that insists on using windows, for example. Otherwise I doubt there will
be a need to replace them any time soon.

After all, whats the point of replacing something that works with
something that probably won't?

-- 
FyreMoon
Under the moon, the chaos dragon flies.