Server OS

I’m currently running an OpenBSD (2.9) webserver, and will be upgrading to a
new box soon.
I have used QNX 6.x extensively, running it as an alternative desktop for
nearly a year, and as a sporadic webserver when I had dial-up, and before I
dedicated a box to webserving.
Since my entire box is changing, I will be reinstalling the OS, and
reloading the site from backup.
As this is a logically good time for it, I will be changing the OS as well.
Right now however, I’m limiting myself to two options:
OpenBSD 3.0
Debian “3.0” (when it comes out, which will be around the time I move my
server)
QNX 6.1 (or current)

I am -strongly- leaning toward OBSD 3.0 right now for the fact that I have
been running it for so long now, and have it fairly understood. I also
prefer the simplicity it offers over that of a Linux Distro. My motivation
for running QNX as my main server is mostly because it’s entertaining. I
would love to be able to brag about running a native QNX -only- box, and a
server at that! I know apache runs well on QNX, and if I wanted something
really small/fast I “could” use slinger, but I’ll stick with good old apache
for now. I understand how Photon, the package manager, etc work. I have
the following requirments on my mail server:

  1. It must host web pages (obviously) preferably running apache…well.
  2. It must have an ftp server (login necessary, anonymous nice too).
  3. It must have a mail server (for <10 users, pop3 although it’d be fun to
    a webmail program up for myself).
  4. It must run samba and be able to play nice on a Windows network (sharing
    directories, mounting shared directories, printing on the network, etc).
  5. It needs all the toys I’m use to (perl, PHP, ssh (required!), shell
    scripts, top, erm, that’s all I can think of right now, but you know what I
    mean)
  6. It would be nice to be able to run an IRCbot off it (eggdrop or
    something).
  7. It would be nice if it could be used as a router/NAT when used with two
    ethernet cards and a hub (using iptables or something, someday I’ll have to
    move out and leave my Linksys at home)
    :sunglasses: It would be nice to have cool guys like Flyingmic out there so I know
    someone with a sense of fashion uses the same OS I do. (;

Okay, so I know QNX has most all of those. Last I checked however, it can’t
run eggdrop, and samba was a royal -PAIN- and I never got it to install
correctly. Of course, that was way back in 6.0, but yeah. Also, I never
had a need for sendmail or anything on QNX before, so do any of you use your
QNX box for these tasks, and can recommend some good software, or arguments
as to its “superiority” over a BSD or Linux? With Linux I know I can pop
into IRC anytime I need help, and presto there’s someone who’s been through
the same thing as me. My demands are relatively simple, so, do I go with
QNX?

I also remember being unable to really run QNX apart from photon, and it
(photon, and some apps) being -incredibly- slow. Have these things been
fixed? As a RTOS can I tell QNX to give total priority (or nearly so) to
apache/perl/sendmail/eggdrop so as to give them faster response time?

Just for the curious:

Old/Current Webserver (MicroServer):
Pentium 90 (~100 MHz)
16 MB RAM
~2.98 GB HD space
2xEthernet
(And yes, QNX did install, and no, the package manager would not run, and
photon was mud, slower than KDE under Mandrake).

New Webserver (MacroServer):
AMD K6-2 450 MHz
128 MB RAM
~15 GB HD space
2xEthernet
(this will have one OS, and be -dedicated-, and will need to be able to be
run headless)

Thanks in advance,
~Ronald (CyberGene)

Ronald (Praelucœ) Bynoe
ICQ: 7399802
AIM: Praeluceo
Web: www.praeluceo.net

Well, I had a lot of experience doing that work with QNX, so here are my
2 cents.

As you might know qnxzone site is running QNX, using Apache, PHP and
PostgreSQL. There is nothing impossible in your list, however keep in
mind that QNX does not really have any superiority as a server OS. It
might be faster than linux/bsd but in reality internet servers do not
need to be very fast with typical connection speeds. OTOH, it will
require considerably more memory to suport same workload. Your 128Mb
probably might be enough for your load, but linux/bsd would support more
load with the same RAM.

You’ll also have to spend a lot more efforts to set everything up. Most
of things you’re talking about are available in some form, but usually
not in ‘works right out of box’ form. QNX is not targeting servers
market, so nobody really applies any serious efforts to provide smooth
user experience in that area. You can find help and yes there’s #qnx IRC
channel with bunch of knowleageble guys, but they won’t do all work for
you.

Bottom line is, go with QNX if you value entertainment/bragging factor
more than simplicity and don’t mind extra RAM requirements. It is also
good way to gain lot of experience hacking/configuring all associated
software.

  • igor

Ronald Bynoe wrote:

I’m currently running an OpenBSD (2.9) webserver, and will be upgrading to a
new box soon.
I have used QNX 6.x extensively, running it as an alternative desktop for
nearly a year, and as a sporadic webserver when I had dial-up, and before I
dedicated a box to webserving.
Since my entire box is changing, I will be reinstalling the OS, and
reloading the site from backup.
As this is a logically good time for it, I will be changing the OS as well.
Right now however, I’m limiting myself to two options:
OpenBSD 3.0
Debian “3.0” (when it comes out, which will be around the time I move my
server)
QNX 6.1 (or current)

I am -strongly- leaning toward OBSD 3.0 right now for the fact that I have
been running it for so long now, and have it fairly understood. I also
prefer the simplicity it offers over that of a Linux Distro. My motivation
for running QNX as my main server is mostly because it’s entertaining. I
would love to be able to brag about running a native QNX -only- box, and a
server at that! I know apache runs well on QNX, and if I wanted something
really small/fast I “could” use slinger, but I’ll stick with good old apache
for now. I understand how Photon, the package manager, etc work. I have
the following requirments on my mail server:

  1. It must host web pages (obviously) preferably running apache…well.
  2. It must have an ftp server (login necessary, anonymous nice too).
  3. It must have a mail server (for <10 users, pop3 although it’d be fun to
    a webmail program up for myself).
  4. It must run samba and be able to play nice on a Windows network (sharing
    directories, mounting shared directories, printing on the network, etc).
  5. It needs all the toys I’m use to (perl, PHP, ssh (required!), shell
    scripts, top, erm, that’s all I can think of right now, but you know what I
    mean)
  6. It would be nice to be able to run an IRCbot off it (eggdrop or
    something).
  7. It would be nice if it could be used as a router/NAT when used with two
    ethernet cards and a hub (using iptables or something, someday I’ll have to
    move out and leave my Linksys at home)
    :sunglasses: > It would be nice to have cool guys like Flyingmic out there so I know
    someone with a sense of fashion uses the same OS I do. (;

Okay, so I know QNX has most all of those. Last I checked however, it can’t
run eggdrop, and samba was a royal -PAIN- and I never got it to install
correctly. Of course, that was way back in 6.0, but yeah. Also, I never
had a need for sendmail or anything on QNX before, so do any of you use your
QNX box for these tasks, and can recommend some good software, or arguments
as to its “superiority” over a BSD or Linux? With Linux I know I can pop
into IRC anytime I need help, and presto there’s someone who’s been through
the same thing as me. My demands are relatively simple, so, do I go with
QNX?

I also remember being unable to really run QNX apart from photon, and it
(photon, and some apps) being -incredibly- slow. Have these things been
fixed? As a RTOS can I tell QNX to give total priority (or nearly so) to
apache/perl/sendmail/eggdrop so as to give them faster response time?

Just for the curious:

Old/Current Webserver (MicroServer):
Pentium 90 (~100 MHz)
16 MB RAM
~2.98 GB HD space
2xEthernet
(And yes, QNX did install, and no, the package manager would not run, and
photon was mud, slower than KDE under Mandrake).

New Webserver (MacroServer):
AMD K6-2 450 MHz
128 MB RAM
~15 GB HD space
2xEthernet
(this will have one OS, and be -dedicated-, and will need to be able to be
run headless)

Thanks in advance,
~Ronald (CyberGene)

Ronald (Praelucœ) Bynoe
ICQ: 7399802
AIM: Praeluceo
Web: > www.praeluceo.net

Funnily, QNX6 had rwho/rwhod shipped for long time, I just always wondered
where it could get the information from. And then when someone said that
‘who’ is deprecated I was really ROTFL-ing.

Just curious what in the hell was so complicated with supporting who? I mean
what was the reason behind stripping out all the accounting features from
BSD utils only to find out couple of years later that you perhaps might need
them…

By the way Kris, utmp/wtmp is not so portable anymore. Solaris was messing
with them lately quite a bit, they now have ‘old style’ and ‘new style’. I
never really liked this mechanism because it has no inherent consistency and
depends solely on every programmer following rules carefully. Procnto can
actually supply all or most of this information, only one have to dig it out
piece by piece instead of reading ‘/proc/users’ or somesuch.

– igor

“Kris Warkentin” <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:a6la8u$98i$1@nntp.qnx.com

Yes, you can. But what about lastlog? What about rwho? What about other
utilities that need to see who’s on the system? There is a reason that
all
unix systems have utmp/wtmp maintained - to give a simple and portable way
for anyone to get this information. Please don’t tell me you’re going to
argue with MISTER W. Richard Stevens, now. > :wink:

cheers,

Kris

“Chris McKillop” <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:a6l6gv$690$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
Kris Warkentin <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote:
Actually, the ‘who’ that I ported worked well enough, it just needed
some
more work to get things to keep the utmp up to date. I’ve put code in
tinit
and telnetd to properly log out now and it all seems to work quite
well.
Now ultimately, we wanted to have procnto provide a mechanism to find
out
who’s logged on (like in qnx4) but I guess Peter never got a round
tuit.
:wink:


Actually, you can figure it out by looking at the processes running in
the
system. That is what camz’s version can do - it is pretty funky.

chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I
get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
\

I will never use QNX 6.1 as server. It doesn’t even have “who” in the
system. Someone in QNX did a port after I asked this a few
weeks back. But it didn’t cover all the login.

No to mention all the security tools, ipchains, iptable, etc are
not there.

It is a toy server at most.


-Tony Lee


“Igor Kovalenko” <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote in message
news:3C83E314.97F6337@motorola.com

Well, I had a lot of experience doing that work with QNX, so here are my
2 cents.

As you might know qnxzone site is running QNX, using Apache, PHP and
PostgreSQL. There is nothing impossible in your list, however keep in
mind that QNX does not really have any superiority as a server OS. It
might be faster than linux/bsd but in reality internet servers do not
need to be very fast with typical connection speeds. OTOH, it will
require considerably more memory to suport same workload. Your 128Mb
probably might be enough for your load, but linux/bsd would support more
load with the same RAM.

You’ll also have to spend a lot more efforts to set everything up. Most
of things you’re talking about are available in some form, but usually
not in ‘works right out of box’ form. QNX is not targeting servers
market, so nobody really applies any serious efforts to provide smooth
user experience in that area. You can find help and yes there’s #qnx IRC
channel with bunch of knowleageble guys, but they won’t do all work for
you.

Bottom line is, go with QNX if you value entertainment/bragging factor
more than simplicity and don’t mind extra RAM requirements. It is also
good way to gain lot of experience hacking/configuring all associated
software.

  • igor

Ronald Bynoe wrote:

I’m currently running an OpenBSD (2.9) webserver, and will be upgrading
to a
new box soon.
I have used QNX 6.x extensively, running it as an alternative desktop
for
nearly a year, and as a sporadic webserver when I had dial-up, and
before I
dedicated a box to webserving.
Since my entire box is changing, I will be reinstalling the OS, and
reloading the site from backup.
As this is a logically good time for it, I will be changing the OS as
well.
Right now however, I’m limiting myself to two options:
OpenBSD 3.0
Debian “3.0” (when it comes out, which will be around the time I move my
server)
QNX 6.1 (or current)

I am -strongly- leaning toward OBSD 3.0 right now for the fact that I
have
been running it for so long now, and have it fairly understood. I also
prefer the simplicity it offers over that of a Linux Distro. My
motivation
for running QNX as my main server is mostly because it’s entertaining.
I
would love to be able to brag about running a native QNX -only- box, and
a
server at that! I know apache runs well on QNX, and if I wanted
something
really small/fast I “could” use slinger, but I’ll stick with good old
apache
for now. I understand how Photon, the package manager, etc work. I
have
the following requirments on my mail server:

  1. It must host web pages (obviously) preferably running apache…well.
  2. It must have an ftp server (login necessary, anonymous nice too).
  3. It must have a mail server (for <10 users, pop3 although it’d be fun
    to
    a webmail program up for myself).
  4. It must run samba and be able to play nice on a Windows network
    (sharing
    directories, mounting shared directories, printing on the network, etc).
  5. It needs all the toys I’m use to (perl, PHP, ssh (required!), shell
    scripts, top, erm, that’s all I can think of right now, but you know
    what I
    mean)
  6. It would be nice to be able to run an IRCbot off it (eggdrop or
    something).
  7. It would be nice if it could be used as a router/NAT when used with
    two
    ethernet cards and a hub (using iptables or something, someday I’ll have
    to
    move out and leave my Linksys at home)
    :sunglasses: > It would be nice to have cool guys like Flyingmic out there so I
    know
    someone with a sense of fashion uses the same OS I do. (;

Okay, so I know QNX has most all of those. Last I checked however, it
can’t
run eggdrop, and samba was a royal -PAIN- and I never got it to install
correctly. Of course, that was way back in 6.0, but yeah. Also, I
never
had a need for sendmail or anything on QNX before, so do any of you use
your
QNX box for these tasks, and can recommend some good software, or
arguments
as to its “superiority” over a BSD or Linux? With Linux I know I can
pop
into IRC anytime I need help, and presto there’s someone who’s been
through
the same thing as me. My demands are relatively simple, so, do I go
with
QNX?

I also remember being unable to really run QNX apart from photon, and it
(photon, and some apps) being -incredibly- slow. Have these things been
fixed? As a RTOS can I tell QNX to give total priority (or nearly so)
to
apache/perl/sendmail/eggdrop so as to give them faster response time?

Just for the curious:

Old/Current Webserver (MicroServer):
Pentium 90 (~100 MHz)
16 MB RAM
~2.98 GB HD space
2xEthernet
(And yes, QNX did install, and no, the package manager would not run,
and
photon was mud, slower than KDE under Mandrake).

New Webserver (MacroServer):
AMD K6-2 450 MHz
128 MB RAM
~15 GB HD space
2xEthernet
(this will have one OS, and be -dedicated-, and will need to be able to
be
run headless)

Thanks in advance,
~Ronald (CyberGene)

Ronald (Praeluco) Bynoe
ICQ: 7399802
AIM: Praeluceo
Web: > www.praeluceo.net

Tony Lee <tl_168168@hotmail.com> wrote:

I will never use QNX 6.1 as server. It doesn’t even have “who” in the
system. Someone in QNX did a port after I asked this a few
weeks back. But it didn’t cover all the login.

There is a cool new “who” floating around that covers all logins. Pop
onto #qnx (irc.qnxzone.com) sometime and ask about it. The guy named
“camz” on the channel wrote it.

No to mention all the security tools, ipchains, iptable, etc are
not there.

ipfilter works perfectly for locking down a QNX box and doing nat/masq.

You can get a pre-built version from my repository,
http://qnx.wox.org/repository/6.1/.


chris


Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

Actually, the ‘who’ that I ported worked well enough, it just needed some
more work to get things to keep the utmp up to date. I’ve put code in tinit
and telnetd to properly log out now and it all seems to work quite well.
Now ultimately, we wanted to have procnto provide a mechanism to find out
who’s logged on (like in qnx4) but I guess Peter never got a round tuit. :wink:

cheers,

Kris
“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:a6jub5$7fs$1@nntp.qnx.com

Tony Lee <> tl_168168@hotmail.com> > wrote:
I will never use QNX 6.1 as server. It doesn’t even have “who” in the
system. Someone in QNX did a port after I asked this a few
weeks back. But it didn’t cover all the login.


There is a cool new “who” floating around that covers all logins. Pop
onto #qnx (irc.qnxzone.com) sometime and ask about it. The guy named
“camz” on the channel wrote it.


No to mention all the security tools, ipchains, iptable, etc are
not there.


ipfilter works perfectly for locking down a QNX box and doing nat/masq.

You can get a pre-built version from my repository,
http://qnx.wox.org/repository/6.1/> .


chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:

Actually, the ‘who’ that I ported worked well enough, it just needed some
more work to get things to keep the utmp up to date. I’ve put code in tinit
and telnetd to properly log out now and it all seems to work quite well.
Now ultimately, we wanted to have procnto provide a mechanism to find out
who’s logged on (like in qnx4) but I guess Peter never got a round tuit. > :wink:

Actually, you can figure it out by looking at the processes running in the
system. That is what camz’s version can do - it is pretty funky.

chris


Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

Yes, you can. But what about lastlog? What about rwho? What about other
utilities that need to see who’s on the system? There is a reason that all
unix systems have utmp/wtmp maintained - to give a simple and portable way
for anyone to get this information. Please don’t tell me you’re going to
argue with MISTER W. Richard Stevens, now. :wink:

cheers,

Kris

“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:a6l6gv$690$1@nntp.qnx.com

Kris Warkentin <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote:
Actually, the ‘who’ that I ported worked well enough, it just needed
some
more work to get things to keep the utmp up to date. I’ve put code in
tinit
and telnetd to properly log out now and it all seems to work quite well.
Now ultimately, we wanted to have procnto provide a mechanism to find
out
who’s logged on (like in qnx4) but I guess Peter never got a round tuit.
:wink:


Actually, you can figure it out by looking at the processes running in the
system. That is what camz’s version can do - it is pretty funky.

chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

Actually, it’s not as bad as all that simply because ‘struct utmp’ is
defined on the host so all utilities compiled for the host will work. Even
the rwho type things are fine because they just ask other machines for the
information rather than reading utmp/wtmp directly. In fact, we’ve even got
it easier since our libc has the standard bsd style login() and logout()
functions that update utmp/wtmp appropriately. So adding support was as
simple as finding the right place in tinit and telnetd to put a logout()
call. Phlogin and pterms are a slightly different story. Most systems set
their graphical terminals to be “setgid utmp” or some such so that they can
write to these files. We’d probably have to set something like that up
(although phlogin should be execcing as root…) Either way, it didn’t
take long to get the basics working - telnet and console logins show up
fine.

cheers,

Kris
“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@home.com> wrote in message
news:a6lkta$qhb$1@inn.qnx.com

Funnily, QNX6 had rwho/rwhod shipped for long time, I just always wondered
where it could get the information from. And then when someone said that
‘who’ is deprecated I was really ROTFL-ing.

Just curious what in the hell was so complicated with supporting who? I
mean
what was the reason behind stripping out all the accounting features from
BSD utils only to find out couple of years later that you perhaps might
need
them…

By the way Kris, utmp/wtmp is not so portable anymore. Solaris was messing
with them lately quite a bit, they now have ‘old style’ and ‘new style’. I
never really liked this mechanism because it has no inherent consistency
and
depends solely on every programmer following rules carefully. Procnto can
actually supply all or most of this information, only one have to dig it
out
piece by piece instead of reading ‘/proc/users’ or somesuch.

– igor

“Kris Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:a6la8u$98i$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
Yes, you can. But what about lastlog? What about rwho? What about
other
utilities that need to see who’s on the system? There is a reason that
all
unix systems have utmp/wtmp maintained - to give a simple and portable
way
for anyone to get this information. Please don’t tell me you’re going
to
argue with MISTER W. Richard Stevens, now. > :wink:

cheers,

Kris

“Chris McKillop” <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:a6l6gv$690$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
Kris Warkentin <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote:
Actually, the ‘who’ that I ported worked well enough, it just needed
some
more work to get things to keep the utmp up to date. I’ve put code
in
tinit
and telnetd to properly log out now and it all seems to work quite
well.
Now ultimately, we wanted to have procnto provide a mechanism to
find
out
who’s logged on (like in qnx4) but I guess Peter never got a round
tuit.
:wink:


Actually, you can figure it out by looking at the processes running in
the
system. That is what camz’s version can do - it is pretty funky.

chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I
get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/


\

Is there security log / syslog to track all the hack/login attempt, etc?

Is the QNXRTP’s file system reliable enough to handle any kind of server
load?

Does the IP stack (io-net) supports TCP/UDP checksum calculation offloading
to NIC chip? Try to figure out the CPU load on the system with Giga-bits
ethernet interface card with close to wireline speed and hundreds if not
thousands TCP connection.

If I have a https HW accelerator, can io-net support that?

Does QNX have any clusters support?

Are they being designed in all application that related to networks
and autenication components of the system as requirements for any
server OS?

Can Ipfilter forward PPTP and MASQ GRE packet?

I don’t doubt that you can pick up a few pieces from different places.
But it is not designed to be server os and it should not be used
as such. Server OS and embedded OS have completely different requirements.
One assumes memory/CPU/disk are never issues (at lease for network
components
and secuity components).

The other assume memory/CPU/disk are ALWAYS design issues.

QNX is cool os for embedded system with well designe micro-kernel.
It should focus on that. Try to be all thing to all people
with only limited resource is formular for failure.


-Tony Lee
Nokia Networks

“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:a6jub5$7fs$1@nntp.qnx.com

Tony Lee <> tl_168168@hotmail.com> > wrote:
I will never use QNX 6.1 as server. It doesn’t even have “who” in the
system. Someone in QNX did a port after I asked this a few
weeks back. But it didn’t cover all the login.


There is a cool new “who” floating around that covers all logins. Pop
onto #qnx (irc.qnxzone.com) sometime and ask about it. The guy named
“camz” on the channel wrote it.


No to mention all the security tools, ipchains, iptable, etc are
not there.


ipfilter works perfectly for locking down a QNX box and doing nat/masq.

You can get a pre-built version from my repository,
http://qnx.wox.org/repository/6.1/> .


chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

LOL, you forgot to add really sucky VM subsystem. And lack of PCI hot-swap
support and lack of any RAID support and pathetic performance of SCSI
drivers.

QNX, you wanna fit this bill? :slight_smile:

– igor

“Tony Lee” <tl_168168@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6o6rt$m35$1@inn.qnx.com

Is there security log / syslog to track all the hack/login attempt, etc?

Is the QNXRTP’s file system reliable enough to handle any kind of server
load?

Does the IP stack (io-net) supports TCP/UDP checksum calculation
offloading
to NIC chip? Try to figure out the CPU load on the system with Giga-bits
ethernet interface card with close to wireline speed and hundreds if not
thousands TCP connection.

If I have a https HW accelerator, can io-net support that?

Does QNX have any clusters support?

Are they being designed in all application that related to networks
and autenication components of the system as requirements for any
server OS?

Can Ipfilter forward PPTP and MASQ GRE packet?

I don’t doubt that you can pick up a few pieces from different places.
But it is not designed to be server os and it should not be used
as such. Server OS and embedded OS have completely different
requirements.
One assumes memory/CPU/disk are never issues (at lease for network
components
and secuity components).

The other assume memory/CPU/disk are ALWAYS design issues.

QNX is cool os for embedded system with well designe micro-kernel.
It should focus on that. Try to be all thing to all people
with only limited resource is formular for failure.


-Tony Lee
Nokia Networks

“Chris McKillop” <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:a6jub5$7fs$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
Tony Lee <> tl_168168@hotmail.com> > wrote:
I will never use QNX 6.1 as server. It doesn’t even have “who” in the
system. Someone in QNX did a port after I asked this a few
weeks back. But it didn’t cover all the login.


There is a cool new “who” floating around that covers all logins. Pop
onto #qnx (irc.qnxzone.com) sometime and ask about it. The guy named
“camz” on the channel wrote it.


No to mention all the security tools, ipchains, iptable, etc are
not there.


ipfilter works perfectly for locking down a QNX box and doing nat/masq.

You can get a pre-built version from my repository,
http://qnx.wox.org/repository/6.1/> .


chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I
get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
\