Originally Posted by cones
I thought the /etc/host thing was for lan only and the otherthing was for wan?
I'll need to look into the hosts file more I know there's a lot you can do with it.
domain name resolution doesn't care about whether the IP address is local or not. An IP address is and IP address - it's up to your networking gear to route it appropriately.
All the hosts file is, is a look up for your OS before it goes off to check the nearest name server. Think of it a bit like a localised name server (it's not technically that, but it's one way of summarising it).
There isn't really a lot you can do with it either to be honest, it's not nearly a flexible as a name server (in fact some people run dnsmasq locally even in spite of the existences of the hosts file). But you can exploit the hosts file as a basic firewall if you want (ie i have a bunch of dodgy sites and ad networks listed in my hosts file and pointing to 127.0.0.1 which stops those sites from loading: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
Originally Posted by cones
Plan9 I think they are on 4.9 I should check though.
Edit: it's 4.8
4.8 is available in my repos so I'll have a play installing it later (i have a feeling it's not going to be an easy update).
Originally Posted by Dream Killer
/etc/hosts works well if you just need to map names for that single machine. for example, if you just need one computer in the administrator role. dns works every computer in the network since it will translate the name for every machine that it's serving. this model works better because any changes will reflect to all machines under that name server. for instance lets say on a network of 200 computers, ftp-server's ip is 10.0.0.2 but it was changed into 10.0.0.3, if /etc/hosts for each of the 200 machines had the entry "10.0.02 ftp-server", they would all each have to be changed by hand, where as you just change one line, one time on a nameserver and all the computers on the lan would resolve "ftp-server" as the new 10.0.0.3 entry.
oh for crying out loud, don't you think if I manage name servers at work and prefer using a hosts file at home, that I know damn well the advantages and weaknesses of each solution? And given the number of times I've already said you're method is equally good, that I'm not knocking you for running bind9 at home? I mean seriously dude, stop being so defensive.
The only reason I comment was because you said, and I quote "you guys better start learning how to set up your own dns servers. ipv6 is coming soon and you don't want to be caught trying to remember an ipv6 address to ssh into your servers
", so I was just pointing out that you don't need
to run a name server, you can just dump your IPv6 addresses into your hosts file instead. I wasn't saying you shouldn't run one, I was just offering up an alternative for those who don't fancy the prospect of learning how to set up bind9.
So can we please drop it now?
Originally Posted by tycoonbob
Actually, the new version of SubSonic (dubbed, SubSonic Premium) is subscription based at $1/mo.
"Upgrade to Subsonic Premium to enjoy these features:
I believe that started at verison 4.8, so 4.7 and below is free. I donated back in the 4.5 days (I think it was).
MadSonic is a direct fork of SubSonic, by a fellow known as MadEvil (great guy):
It's a fork of SubSonic 4.7 Build 3090 with schema modifications, and lots of new features. It has evolved to it's 5.0 beta builds to no longer follow directly with SubSonic, though. It brought features like access control with user groups to limit access to certain media folders, bandwidth, settings, etc. Pandora mode is pretty cool, which is a really new feature. Better Last.FM integration (similar artist, bio, artist artwork, etc), option to switch from flash video to HTML5 video, DLNA built-in, new theme, and quite a bit more. Would have to dig through the change logs to see all the new features since I'm so used to them just being there. I recently loaded the latest MadSonic build on my CentOS box if you want to check it out. Just shoot me a PM and I can send you the link.
Madsonic's website is shockingly bad.
The DLNA is a nice addition though - that's been the only feature I've missed from Subsonic (and I've wasted hours trying to find a decent DNLA solution in it's place - and since given up).
Sadly Madsonic isn't in FreeBSD's repos so I'll probably just stick to Subsonic for now. Thanks for the info though, reps