netbsd http, ftp, telnet server on amiga 4000, and about ethernet cards

[Floid]

smok3 wrote:
yeah, any comments on the os for the project? i plan to use amiga 4000/040 for the apache, some ftp daemon (which one?) and some telnet access (what server?),

and the most important, where to get an ethernet card that will support such setup and would plug into d-link router corectly? any comments welcome

Depending on the level of content you want to serve, you might want to consider a lighter httpd (thttpd, for instance).  NetBSD includes ftpd and telnetd, and the OpenSSH suite is available from pkgsrc.  (You'd want to do some research to pick a suitably fast cipher for ssh/sftp.)  The modern  telnetd has some options for encrypted authentication that you'll want to research.

It really depends on the purpose the machine is meant to serve.  The native tools may or may not have their flaws, but 'jails' and proper monitoring will likely serve you better than simply picking the package with the biggest security hype.

[Floid]

smok3 wrote:
i will call it 'experimental' server then, tnx for the answer. (for better picture: i also have fastlane z3 scsi card and some pretty fast scsi drives, maybe that will help a bit, in any case my old a4000 is doing nothing and i cant allowe that

Crypto, active content (PHP, mod-ruby/rhtml, mod-python or whatever) and software builds will be CPU-limited; everything else will probably be nemory/disk/network-limited... meaning that, lightly loaded, you should certainly see transfers near peak 10baseT rates if the network card is up to it.  (I have no idea if the bottlenecks of the X-Surf are in software or hardware, if it has any; the chipset it's based on certainly worked great in the 486s that were *my* experimental boxes...)

Don't let me scare you off Apache if your goal is to have fun with it; it should probably be fine.  (Okay, it was fine on a i486DX2-50... an 040/25 seems to be roughly half as fast, so it might be a little cramped, and building it from source might take an extra day or two.  Just pretend you're on a PDP-11, or some other Iron of yesteryear.  Network servers aren't really complex at all- they *did* run on such hardware.)

Only one TCP stack (Miami) will handle the DHCP needed by your cable modem, and it can no longer be purchased.

would that mean i cant use netbsd stack? or can i use amiga&miami prior to booting to netbsd?

Whoever wrote that was a bit confused- under NetBSD, it's all handled by NetBSD, and dhclient is certainly a part of the base install.  That would apply to the Amiga side of things, of course... but if you've got a Linksys box or similar, you could always put the machine on the static "DMZ" address behind the NAT.

[Floid]

I meant the 'confused' bit for Desmon. ;-)

This reference is the best I could find; no experience, myself.

There's this, but no info on whether he resolved the issue per the suggestion or was up against driver bitrot (the former would be my guess, but then, I would've expected Knoppix's Linux kernel to select the PHY on my HomePNA card properly.).

The manpage for the driver lists a few cards of comparable vintage.

Probably fine, if you don't mind 1. using coax, or finding a 10bT transceiver, 2. possibly sticking a 486 fan on it?, and 3. you're paying less than for an X-Surf or more modern card.

This post mentions 750k/s throughput from a 2065, presumably under AmigaOS.

[Floid]

destro wrote:
Hello there. If you can afford it, you might be better off getting a mediator card and then getting a 100mbit
pci network card.

So far as I know, no Amiga PCI bridges are yet supported by NetBSD, the Prometheus being/having been the one with the best hope for support, given the various manufacturers' takes on developer relations?

That said, it would certainly be a good solution were he to stick with AmigaOS exclusively.

[Floid]

smok3 wrote:
uhmm, what makes you think iam using amiga os ? (in alternative os forum and when the first word in the thread is netbsd)

Thread chatter keeps bumping it to the front page, and it seems everyone would rather you stick with the platform.

Or maybe they don't know what NetBSD is!  :shocked:

[Floid]

Ilwrath wrote:
Yeah, I think they missed that part.  I will ask why you chose netbsd, though...  Amiga OS has most everything you'd need for the project you're working on, and really it's just not an Amiga if it isn't running Amiga OS.  Besides, didn't netbsd recently drop the Amiga m68k line after lack of interest?

Well, you can also look at it as a continuation of the AMIX tradition.

NetBSD didn't drop Amiga/68k - that was OpenBSD, and it's an example of the differences between the... three/3.5/four major BSD projects.  NetBSD's focus is on continuing/extending the BSD lineage through wide platform support and an open development model.  (Read: Major alterations to NetBSD must generally survive on/not break the codebases for the platforms supported.)  OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD, and originally chose to preserve the Amiga port, among others- but their focus is on security, and so they've decided to allow the (undermaintained,  for lack of knowledgeable volunteers) Amiga port succumb to its bitrot; they have bigger things to worry about right now.*

FreeBSD, in turn, began sort of oblong to NetBSD,** and has since taken on a sort of staid, RedHat-like role, supporting i386 (and soon a few other platforms) for what's supposed to be stable, 'production' use... and for now, Darwin attracts those who equate free labor for Apple with Saving the Universe.  (Okay, that's a bad joke.  A lot of developers seem to enjoy Darwin because 1. many of its outstanding issues are probably 'easy stuff' long-since tackled in the other systems, and 2. it, and the commercial OS based on it, are 'different' enough that people are finding it a playground for ideas that couldn't be made to fit in the other projects, for whatever reason.  Plus, Apple does pay their developers.)

Perhaps that mudd- er, clears things up?  In any case, NetBSD isn't known for dropping projects; at worst, they end up in perpetual stalled development or limbo - which *does* mean anyone can jump in at a later point and improve them.  (Not that the linked amigappc attempt seems to *have* any code that made it to the tree.)  Even OpenBSD isn't removing the code from their server; they're just not going to roll new developments into it without anyone to catch integration issues and tell them if it works.

--

*Each word is an individual link, there.  Know all the deadly.org ones don't make it obvious.

**Bang forehead on link to continue;  history of the death/rebirth of the original 386BSD project here...and a timeline including BSD and Linux development over here.

[Floid]

Desmon wrote:
Sorry about all the nested quotes, but if you read the original question, there's NO mention of NetBSD at all. I simply thought he was trying to run it all under AmigaOS.

Yep.  Wasn't trying to be rude, just keeping the facts straight.

gw3s does look quite cool.  Anyone know if it survives on Regina REXX?  Then he could run the same site off AmigaOS *and* NetBSD.  (I've always liked REXX as a concept, but never used it much.  Don't have any clue how socket access works, and/or any ARexx vs. ANSI REXX caveats, if there are any.)