Recommendations for good Web site hosting company (for personal Web site)

[Dr. Colombes]

For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising) Web
site hosting company (in U.S.).

Thanks!

[David E. Ross]

Dr. Colombes wrote:

For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising) Web
site hosting company (in U.S.).

Thanks!

I use my ISP, ISWest at <http://main.iswest.com/index.html>. I get 10
MB of Web space with no band-width limits. I also get Telnet access to
their Web server (my Web space only) so that I can test my SSI scripts,
which are coded in UNIX (Korn shell). There are NO ads. No, this is
not free hosting; but it is included in the cost of my Internet access
and mail boxes.

Note that a good Web server should be friendly to any user's platform
and operating system. I don't really understand your interest in "Linux
friendly".

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>

[linnix]

David E. Ross wrote:

Dr. Colombes wrote:

For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising) Web
site hosting company (in U.S.).

Thanks!

I use my ISP, ISWest at <http://main.iswest.com/index.html>. I get 10
MB of Web space with no band-width limits. I also get Telnet access to
their Web server (my Web space only) so that I can test my SSI scripts,
which are coded in UNIX (Korn shell). There are NO ads. No, this is
not free hosting; but it is included in the cost of my Internet access
and mail boxes.

Note that a good Web server should be friendly to any user's platform
and operating system. I don't really understand your interest in "Linux
friendly".

One reason I can think of is that you can run the same binary on the
desktop and server. It's much easier to edit and compile on the local
desktop and ftp the binary to the server. I usually just keep a ssh
window to start/restart the application. Many of our webs are bigger
than 10MB.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>

[Leonard Blaisdell]

In article <11*********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
"linnix" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Note that a good Web server should be friendly to any user's platform
and operating system. I don't really understand your interest in "Linux
friendly".

One reason I can think of is that you can run the same binary on the
desktop and server.

Compilation on your machine with upload and function on another machine
is a rarely experienced luxury. Linux serves many architectures with
many branches.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

[ray]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:49:26 -0700, Dr. Colombes wrote:

For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising) Web
site hosting company (in U.S.).

Thanks!

I use netfirms.com for my web hosting, and I do several non-profit groups
there as well. They have free accounts, with ads. Their basic commercial
package is $5.95/mo and $5-$10/yr for domain registration. I believe
current limits are 600MB and 10 e-mail addresses. I've had good experience
with them and their e-mail support seems quite good. Recommended.

[Robert Hull]

In comp.os.linux.misc, on Mon 17 April 2006 00:49, Dr. Colombes
<Dr********@yahoo.com> wrote:

For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising)
Web site hosting company (in U.S.).

When my servers were due to be down for a while, I moved my essential
web sites to 2mhost - http://www.2mhost.com/

They offer low cost linux based hosting, lots of software available at
little or no extra cost, no advertising and a responsive support team.

YMMV
--
Robert HULL

Archival or publication of this article on any part of thisishull.net
is without consent and is in direct breach of the Data Protection Act

[VK]

Dr. Colombes wrote:

For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising) Web
site hosting company (in U.S.).

For 4 years I was using <http://www.superusers.net> for low/mid
solutions: their Web1000 plan ($49.95/year inclusive domain name
registration) is ideal for that IMHO.

No one case yet of credit card scam, full control over Unix server
through Web-based CPanel, all needed server features (SSI, Perl, PHP,
MySQL)

[The Doctor]

Check up http://www.nk.ca/
--
Member - Liberal International
This is do****@nl2k.ab.ca Ici do****@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Remeber Christ is the Reason for Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday

[RoseW]

In news:11*********************@i40g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com,
Dr. Colombes <Dr********@yahoo.com> typed:
| For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
| demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
| reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising)
| Web site hosting company (in U.S.).
|
| Thanks!

http://www.cjb.cc has free (50mg)with minimal ads and reasonably
priced, large size storage with no ads- Recently overhauled and server
storage revamped. Check the forum for fine details. Downloads were not
allowed in the past.
Rose

[Schraalhans Keukenmeester]

Dr. Colombes wrote:

For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising) Web
site hosting company (in U.S.).

Thanks!

Thought of simply running the webserver yourself ? If you have a dial-in
account this won't be of much use, but a modest DSL or cable connection
would suffice as long as traffic is low and availability isn't the key
factor.

Of course, the extra power costs for running your box 24/7 should be
taken into consideration, plus the time spent in maintaining, securing
and monitoring the webserver.

Since you ask for Linux-friendly, is my assumption right you are
familiar with the OS and have it running somewhere ? (Your post cam from
a doze box, right?). Running a webserver from a windows user pc is not
on my "recommended" list...

If you are after free/cheap, also consider getting a domainname from
dot.tk if you don't mind the advertising.

[Stan Brown]

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:15:20 +0200 from Schraalhans Keukenmeester
<firstnamedotlastname@_REMOVE_xs4all_REMOVE_.nl> :

Thought of simply running the webserver yourself ? If you have a dial-in
account this won't be of much use, but a modest DSL or cable connection
would suffice as long as traffic is low and availability isn't the key
factor.

I would check the ISPs terms of service before committing to this
course of action.

Some expressly prohibit running a server; others may reclassify a
home account as commercial -- raising the cost above that of a decent
commercial Web host.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

[Jean-David Beyer]

Stan Brown wrote:

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:15:20 +0200 from Schraalhans Keukenmeester
<firstnamedotlastname@_REMOVE_xs4all_REMOVE_.nl> :

Thought of simply running the webserver yourself ? If you have a dial-in
account this won't be of much use, but a modest DSL or cable connection
would suffice as long as traffic is low and availability isn't the key
factor.

I would check the ISPs terms of service before committing to this
course of action.

Some expressly prohibit running a server; others may reclassify a
home account as commercial -- raising the cost above that of a decent
commercial Web host.

Also, you would need a static IP address. My ISP specifically says no
servers (but I seem to get away with using ntpd that uses ports under 1024,
so they may have an enlightened view of what a server is), and requires an
extra fee of about US$50/month for a static IP address that I must pay for
in addition (though I can get it from whoever I want). But I pay about
US$40/month for my current service (15 Megabit/second download), and it
would be almost $200, IIRC, for business service with static IP address and
permission to run servers. Needless to say, I have not availed myself of
that opportunity.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:40:01 up 8 days, 23:06, 3 users, load average: 4.19, 4.23, 4.21

[Schraalhans Keukenmeester]

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:15:20 +0200 from Schraalhans Keukenmeester
<firstnamedotlastname@_REMOVE_xs4all_REMOVE_.nl> :

Thought of simply running the webserver yourself ? If you have a dial-in
account this won't be of much use, but a modest DSL or cable connection
would suffice as long as traffic is low and availability isn't the key
factor.

I would check the ISPs terms of service before committing to this
course of action.

Some expressly prohibit running a server; others may reclassify a
home account as commercial -- raising the cost above that of a decent
commercial Web host.

Also, you would need a static IP address. My ISP specifically says no
servers (but I seem to get away with using ntpd that uses ports under 1024,
so they may have an enlightened view of what a server is), and requires an
extra fee of about US$50/month for a static IP address that I must pay for
in addition (though I can get it from whoever I want). But I pay about
US$40/month for my current service (15 Megabit/second download), and it
would be almost $200, IIRC, for business service with static IP address and
permission to run servers. Needless to say, I have not availed myself of
that opportunity.

Am I wrong or are dynamic IP's and homebased webhosts the reason so many
dynamic-dns type of services exist ? I have no experience with it, so I
may be totally wrong. Hadn't thought of the ISP policies restricting
home-servers btw. My ISP allows everything, even lifted the fair-use
policy on bandwidth usage. I can max out my connection 24/7. Lucky!

[Jean-David Beyer]

Schraalhans Keukenmeester wrote:

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:15:20 +0200 from Schraalhans Keukenmeester
<firstnamedotlastname@_REMOVE_xs4all_REMOVE_.nl> :

Thought of simply running the webserver yourself ? If you have a
dial-in account this won't be of much use, but a modest DSL or cable
connection would suffice as long as traffic is low and availability
isn't the key factor.

I would check the ISPs terms of service before committing to this
course of action.

Some expressly prohibit running a server; others may reclassify a
home account as commercial -- raising the cost above that of a decent
commercial Web host.

Also, you would need a static IP address. My ISP specifically says no
servers (but I seem to get away with using ntpd that uses ports under
1024,
so they may have an enlightened view of what a server is), and
requires an
extra fee of about US$50/month for a static IP address that I must pay
for
in addition (though I can get it from whoever I want). But I pay about
US$40/month for my current service (15 Megabit/second download), and it
would be almost $200, IIRC, for business service with static IP
address and
permission to run servers. Needless to say, I have not availed myself of
that opportunity.

Am I wrong or are dynamic IP's and homebased webhosts the reason so many
dynamic-dns type of services exist ? I have no experience with it, so I
may be totally wrong. Hadn't thought of the ISP policies restricting
home-servers btw. My ISP allows everything, even lifted the fair-use
policy on bandwidth usage. I can max out my connection 24/7. Lucky!

I imagine you are right about the reason for dynamic-dns services.

I do not know how Verizon implement their no-servers policy. I thought they
might just block all incoming ports less than 1024, but they do not do that.
So I guess they block incoming ports like #80 and perhaps #20, #22, #42,
#53, and #110. Or maybe they examine just outgoing traffic flow, but they do
not say I cannot download continuously. My connection is their FiOS
(Fibre-to-the-home) service that has 622 Megabit data rate at the street.
The most they will sell me is 4 voice lines, one 30 megabit/sec download 2
megabit/sec upload ethernet, and a cable-tv connection all down a single
fibre-optic line.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:05:01 up 9 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 4.02, 4.05, 4.00

[pegasusflightresources]

Schraalhans Keukenmeester wrote:

Dr. Colombes wrote:

For a personal Web site with modest throughput and interactivity
demans, I'm interested in your recommendation(s) for good (cheap,
reliable, Linux friendly, very little, if any, sponsor advertising) Web
site hosting company (in U.S.).

Thanks!

Thought of simply running the webserver yourself ? If you have a dial-in
account this won't be of much use, but a modest DSL or cable connection
would suffice as long as traffic is low and availability isn't the key
factor.

Of course, the extra power costs for running your box 24/7 should be
taken into consideration, plus the time spent in maintaining, securing
and monitoring the webserver.

Since you ask for Linux-friendly, is my assumption right you are
familiar with the OS and have it running somewhere ? (Your post cam from
a doze box, right?). Running a webserver from a windows user pc is not
on my "recommended" list...

If you are after free/cheap, also consider getting a domainname from
dot.tk if you don't mind the advertising.

The only problem with hosting the webserver yourself using a DSL or
cable-connection (preferably DSL) is that you will be forced to use an
IP Address, possibly even with the addition of setting up port
forwarding on your router, and then leading to you having to register a
domain name. I have experience with this idea, and I currently have a
server running like this, but the whole setup has cost me 2 years of my
life, and I haven't even gotten the domain name yet, although I have a
ton of other things happening. This idea could be long to setup, but I
believe that it will pay off in the long term (if that even happens
with you). If you are only wanting a website for personal purposes, I
would suggest freewebs.com, as they have a very efficient and
sophisticated web design helper. They have moderate advertisement, but
you can modify your page with any OS that you want to, as long as you
have an appropriate web browser (MSIE, Firefox, Netscape, maybe Safari,
maybe Opera).

As for the comment by Sir Keukenmeester about runnin a windows web
server, I believe that it is perfectly okay, as long as you use the
most updated version of IIS and use any of the Windows NT line (Windows
2000 Professional, Server, and Advanced Server included). The server I
have running uses IIS and Windows 2000 Professional, and I have not had
a single problem. If you are even more paranoid, just use some kind of
firewall that should protect you from any malicious intruders, so you
should have your server running safely.

I remain your most humble and Ob't Sv't in our battle against the King.

--
Patrick Reilly
1st Coy.
Colonel Seth Warner's Regiment

[pegasusflightresources]

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:15:20 +0200 from Schraalhans Keukenmeester
<firstnamedotlastname@_REMOVE_xs4all_REMOVE_.nl> :

Thought of simply running the webserver yourself ? If you have a dial-in
account this won't be of much use, but a modest DSL or cable connection
would suffice as long as traffic is low and availability isn't the key
factor.

I would check the ISPs terms of service before committing to this
course of action.

Some expressly prohibit running a server; others may reclassify a
home account as commercial -- raising the cost above that of a decent
commercial Web host.

Also, you would need a static IP address. My ISP specifically says no
servers (but I seem to get away with using ntpd that uses ports under 1024,
so they may have an enlightened view of what a server is), and requires an
extra fee of about US$50/month for a static IP address that I must pay for
in addition (though I can get it from whoever I want). But I pay about
US$40/month for my current service (15 Megabit/second download), and it
would be almost $200, IIRC, for business service with static IP address and
permission to run servers. Needless to say, I have not availed myself of
that opportunity.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:40:01 up 8 days, 23:06, 3 users, load average: 4.19, 4.23, 4.21

An additional comment on the concept of Dynamic IP Addresses:
You can simply use dyndns.com for hosting with a dynamic IP address. I
believe that dyndns.com uses MAC addresses in order to identify certain
hosts instead of using IP addresses so that the connection is not
confused by the change in IP for dynamic IP address customers.

I remain your most humble and Ob't Sv't in our battle against the King.

--
Patrick Reilly
1st Coy.
Colonel Seth Warner's Regiment

[Schraalhans Keukenmeester]

pe********************@gmail.com wrote:

Schraalhans Keukenmeester wrote:

As for the comment by Sir Keukenmeester about runnin a windows web
server, I believe that it is perfectly okay, as long as you use the
most updated version of IIS and use any of the Windows NT line (Windows
2000 Professional, Server, and Advanced Server included). The server I
have running uses IIS and Windows 2000 Professional, and I have not had
a single problem.

I'm no windows basher. Don't get me wrong.
I said 'a windows user pc', I meant (and perhaps should just have said
so) a box running a typical client version of Windows. XP, Me, whatever.
The server OS versions are a different story, I just don't expect many
users to run that on their client pc's. I won't burn my fingers on the
neverending discussion about IIS/NT,2000-2003 versus Apache/Linux, which
is like debating whether BK or Mac make the best burgers.

As far as most updated versions, although older Apache versions run
perfectly, having your system up to date is a good thing, regardless of
its OS, be it Linux, Windowx, MacOSX, whatever... Especialy if you run
public services. At least from a security perspective.

One point though. Inducing a typical system/setup is 'perfectly okay'
from the fact 'you never had problems with it' is misty reasoning in my
book. Nonetheless, I do believe you are certainly not the only one
having good results with a similar setup.

Thanks for nuancing my comments!
Sh.

[Schraalhans Keukenmeester]

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

My connection is their FiOS
(Fibre-to-the-home) service that has 622 Megabit data rate at the street.
The most they will sell me is 4 voice lines, one 30 megabit/sec download 2
megabit/sec upload ethernet, and a cable-tv connection all down a single
fibre-optic line.

Jealous! Out of curiosity, how much does such a connection set you back
each month ? Funny though with upload b/width like that they close ports
and prohibit (or at least discourage) homebased servers. Ah well, port
8080 is still open isn't it. What about 443 ? Just serve everything via
https.

Sh.

[Jean-David Beyer]

Schraalhans Keukenmeester wrote:

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

My connection is their FiOS
(Fibre-to-the-home) service that has 622 Megabit data rate at the street.
The most they will sell me is 4 voice lines, one 30 megabit/sec
download 2
megabit/sec upload ethernet, and a cable-tv connection all down a single
fibre-optic line.
Jealous! Out of curiosity, how much does such a connection set you back
each month ?

$US$39.95 a month. The equivalent (for downloading) of 10 T-1 connections. I
actually get that kind of speed, too, except with some slow servers, as long
as I confine the servers to Chicago and east. West of there, I get only
about 5 Megabits/second. The connection includes 10 Megabytes of web space
(that I do not use, since I do not need a web site), e-mail with 10
different logins, Usenet.
Funny though with upload b/width like that they close ports
and prohibit (or at least discourage) homebased servers. Ah well, port
8080 is still open isn't it. What about 443 ? Just serve everything via
https.
Those ports might be closed too. Actually I do not know if they close any
ports, but they say you must not run servers unless you pay extra for
business service instead of residential. And since I do not get a static IP
address unless I pay for it, they can tell that way.

On the other hand, my dynamic IP address was constant from March 13 until
yesterday when the connection seems to have failed around 2AM. I was asleep
at the time, so did not notice it. There was no power failure here at that
time, and the Fibre-to-ethernet box is powered through a built-in UPS that
is plugged into a conventional UPS anyway. Here is part of the router's log:
Apr/19/2006 04:54:54 PPPoE line connected
Apr/19/2006 04:54:43 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 04:54:42 PPPoE Retry Fail Disconnect PPPoE line
Apr/19/2006 04:54:26 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 04:54:25 PPPoE Retry Fail Disconnect PPPoE line
Apr/19/2006 04:54:08 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 04:54:07 PPPoE Retry Fail Disconnect PPPoE line
Apr/19/2006 04:53:51 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 04:53:49 PPPoE Retry Fail Disconnect PPPoE line
Apr/19/2006 04:53:33 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
......
Apr/19/2006 02:10:16 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 02:10:15 PPPoE Retry Fail Disconnect PPPoE line
Apr/19/2006 02:09:59 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 02:09:58 Server timeout! Disconnect PPPoE line
Apr/19/2006 01:56:45 PPPoE line connected
Apr/19/2006 01:56:37 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 01:56:36 PPPoE Retry Fail Disconnect PPPoE line
Apr/19/2006 01:56:19 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 01:56:18 PPPoE Retry Fail Disconnect PPPoE line
Apr/19/2006 01:56:02 PPPoE try to re-connect automaticly
Apr/19/2006 01:56:01 Server timeout! Disconnect PPPoE line
Mar/13/2006 21:44:03 PPPoE line connected
Mar/13/2006 21:44:02 WAN: Auto Dialup Try to establish PPPoE line
Mar/13/2006 21:44:02 System started

Sh.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:45:01 up 9 days, 20:11, 3 users, load average: 4.11, 4.18, 4.09

[frederick]

pe********************@gmail.com wrote:

I believe that it is perfectly okay, as long as you use the
most updated version of IIS and use any of the Windows NT line (Windows
2000 Professional, Server, and Advanced Server included).
XP is part of the NT line, so perhaps you didn't quite mean what you
said?
If you are even more paranoid, just use some kind of
firewall that should protect you from any malicious intruders, so you
should have your server running safely.

Paranoia doesn't come into it. Anyone with an always-on connection
should run a firewall. Not just for their benefit, but for everyone's.
Unless you meant a hardware firewall?
--
AGw.

[pegasusflightresources]

Schraalhans Keukenmeester wrote:

pe********************@gmail.com wrote:

Schraalhans Keukenmeester wrote:

As for the comment by Sir Keukenmeester about runnin a windows web
server, I believe that it is perfectly okay, as long as you use the
most updated version of IIS and use any of the Windows NT line (Windows
2000 Professional, Server, and Advanced Server included). The server I
have running uses IIS and Windows 2000 Professional, and I have not had
a single problem.

I'm no windows basher. Don't get me wrong.
I said 'a windows user pc', I meant (and perhaps should just have said
so) a box running a typical client version of Windows. XP, Me, whatever.
The server OS versions are a different story, I just don't expect many
users to run that on their client pc's. I won't burn my fingers on the
neverending discussion about IIS/NT,2000-2003 versus Apache/Linux, which
is like debating whether BK or Mac make the best burgers.

As far as most updated versions, although older Apache versions run
perfectly, having your system up to date is a good thing, regardless of
its OS, be it Linux, Windowx, MacOSX, whatever... Especialy if you run
public services. At least from a security perspective.

One point though. Inducing a typical system/setup is 'perfectly okay'
from the fact 'you never had problems with it' is misty reasoning in my
book. Nonetheless, I do believe you are certainly not the only one
having good results with a similar setup.

Thanks for nuancing my comments!
Sh.

I understand that you meant a client PC using Windows XP, although I do
not recommend using Windows XP at all. There are many possibilities
with the Windows OSes, and even XP can use IIS, just requiring a proper
configuration. I have fooled around with XP and IIS and I have almost
completed a simple CD that requires the movement and placement of
certain files, while modifying others in order to enable IIS in XP. It
does happen that XP has IIS already installed, it just happens that the
..inf file has a disable parameter that does not let the user know that
XP has IIS. Other files are required in order to fully enable IIS, and
that process is tedious, but it still is possible to use XP with IIS.

On the topic of firewalls, I have no preference to having one or not
having one. I, personally, do not have one at all (software or
hardware) in my home, happening to have up to 10 computers working at
times. My server, which runs using a static IP address, has not had
any malicious tools or anything of that sort enter it's vicinity, and
neither have any of the other computers that are networked under a
router with a different static IP. I am not discouraging the use of
firewalls, but I am just saying that working without a firewall can be
safe, although not as safe. I have, in the past, used software
firewalls, but most of them were freeware and were limited to their
configuration. Those that were freeware were trial versions, as there
is no completely free software firewall.

I am sorry if I have insulted you in any way, but I just am telling a
certain manner in which one may do the requested services. Thank you,
sir, for the commentary in order for clarification.

I remain your most humble and Ob't Sv't in our war against the King.

--
Patrick Reilly
1st Coy.
Colonel Seth Warner's Regiment