Saturday, February 24, 2007
Virtual Reality
I consider myself moderately adept at setting up and using the Apache HTTPD server. There's just not a whole lot to it. However, one thing has plagued me, mocking me as if to say "You'll never get me!" This is the concept of virtual hosts.
Virtual hosts provide a way for a web server to host more than one site from a single machine. It also makes it possible to do this without having a gazillion network interface cards. It's really a cool concept that I wish I could figure out. I know I'm close, but there's something I'm missing.
To start out, I have to first set up virtual network interfaces based on my installed interface eth0. I do this by entering the follow set of commands:
ifconfig eth0:1 123.45.67.8
route add -host 123.45.67.8 dev eth0:1
At this point, I can ping that IP address on my network and it will respond. Of course, I'm not using address 123.45.67.8. That is only for demonstration purposes. The real address I'm assigning to eth0:1 is 192.168.1.17, which is convenient for my network setup.
After setting up the virtual network interface, I then modify the httpd.conf file to include the virtual host's address, which is 192.168.1.17. Then, I restart the web server. All is well. There are no errors or anything up to that point.
When I go out to a browser and try browsing my newly-created virtual address, it simply routes me back to the original site stored on the machine. So, my Schillclan site now has two names that refer to it, and the new domain name doesn't get to it's intended document root. That's the problem I am having.
Just thought I'd let everyone out there know about it.
Virtual hosts provide a way for a web server to host more than one site from a single machine. It also makes it possible to do this without having a gazillion network interface cards. It's really a cool concept that I wish I could figure out. I know I'm close, but there's something I'm missing.
To start out, I have to first set up virtual network interfaces based on my installed interface eth0. I do this by entering the follow set of commands:
ifconfig eth0:1 123.45.67.8
route add -host 123.45.67.8 dev eth0:1
At this point, I can ping that IP address on my network and it will respond. Of course, I'm not using address 123.45.67.8. That is only for demonstration purposes. The real address I'm assigning to eth0:1 is 192.168.1.17, which is convenient for my network setup.
After setting up the virtual network interface, I then modify the httpd.conf file to include the virtual host's address, which is 192.168.1.17. Then, I restart the web server. All is well. There are no errors or anything up to that point.
When I go out to a browser and try browsing my newly-created virtual address, it simply routes me back to the original site stored on the machine. So, my Schillclan site now has two names that refer to it, and the new domain name doesn't get to it's intended document root. That's the problem I am having.
Just thought I'd let everyone out there know about it.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Free Speech and Free Beer
Recently, and by recently, I mean the last several years, there has been more and more in the press about "Free Speech" and First Amendment rights. Amid all this noise and commotion, I have to wonder if people really understand what free speech is. People tend to think that free speech means that they can say anything they want (or do anything they want) and everyone has to be happy about it and leave them alone. Not so. Free speech never meant that. In accordance with the First Amendment, I do have a constitutional right to (for the most part) say whatever I want. But, it is not a condition of that right that everyone else should be happy with what I say and leave me alone. I have to live with the consequences of what I say.
Contrast that with free beer. I can accept or give away free beer and it doesn't really affect anyone but me. If I give away free beer, the recipient has no further commitment to me after receiving the beer. Likewise, I no longer have a commitment to the recipient of the free beer. Like it or not, they have the beer and I do not. It was free.
But, if I say something to someone that is hurtful (and do it in the name of my "First Amendment Rights") they may or may not continue to have some association with me regarding what I said. And, to top it off, I can't claim immunity from their lashings based on the First Amendment. So, while it is true that we do have free speech rights (which are very precious, God-given rights), they do not absolve us of responsibility for what we say and do.
Contrast that with free beer. I can accept or give away free beer and it doesn't really affect anyone but me. If I give away free beer, the recipient has no further commitment to me after receiving the beer. Likewise, I no longer have a commitment to the recipient of the free beer. Like it or not, they have the beer and I do not. It was free.
But, if I say something to someone that is hurtful (and do it in the name of my "First Amendment Rights") they may or may not continue to have some association with me regarding what I said. And, to top it off, I can't claim immunity from their lashings based on the First Amendment. So, while it is true that we do have free speech rights (which are very precious, God-given rights), they do not absolve us of responsibility for what we say and do.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Packaged Dreams
People usually reserve the most beautiful wrapping for gifts meant only for the most beloved of individuals, or to show that something is very important. This is often an outward sign that someone or something is very special. I would never think of giving a shoddily-wrapped gift to a very special friend or family member. Nor would I wrap a very prized gift poorly. It would be bad taste. So, why is it that substances that are absolutely 100% guaranteed to destroy lives are wrapped in such splendor and magnificence?
The substances I speak of are alcohol and tobacco products. These products have very little, if any, redeemable value, yet they are packaged as if they were fit for a king. Go to the store and see for yourself. Normal, everyday products are packaged in normal, everyday packaging. This wrapping is often done quickly and in a cost-sensitive manner. Not so with alcohol and tobacco. The wrapping is very elaborate and expensive. Look at a bottle of wine, for instance. The labeling is often printed on very nice, high-fiber paper with ornate designs that include elegant fonts and often gold gilding. Would you find that on a loaf of bread, or a box of crackers? No, you probably wouldn't. However, bread and crackers probably aren't going to ruin a person's life and relationships. But alcohol will. Tobacco products are similarly packaged. Cigars often come with very ornate packaging and are stored in expensive humidors. Cigarettes come very carefully packaged in containers with very elaborate blends of tobacco and other poisons mixed to create certain flavors and sensations.
It's all horse shit, folks. That's all it is. These items are nothing more than despair, heartache, and death wrapped up in very special packaging and made to look appealing. What about the young mother whose delinquent husband beats her and abuses her children because of the alcohol toxicity in his body? Or what about the family whose lives are forever disrupted because a stranger decided to drink and drive? Or what about the gentleman who now needs to breath through a tracheotomy because of pharyngeal cancer brought on by cigarettes? Do these things sound glamorous or appealing in any way? Alcohol and tobacco cause these kinds of problems. They do not solve anything. Period. There was never anything good brought about by a drink or a smoke.
Families are torn apart because of these things. I mainly level my sights on alcohol because of the misery I have personally witnessed in the presence of a drink. People drink because they think it will solve their problems. Bull crap. It never solved anything. You'll get the same effect drinking turpentine or drinking gasoline. It's all toxic. Alcohol is toxic and impairs the body from its normal functions. Granted gasoline, turpentine, paint thinner, etc. will generally cause more severe problems much more quickly than a drink of scotch, but it's all the same. Over time, you'll see the kinds of effects brought on by alcohol consumption.
Alcohol only causes problems and makes existing problems worse. Talk to anyone convicted of driving under the influence. They'll tell you some pretty nasty horror stories. In fact, I just finished watching a film on the Farmers Insurance site which features a young man (among others) who decided that it was okay to drink and drive. Because of his drinking and driving, two of his friends are now dead and he served four years in prison with six more years of pretty serious probation. That's not something you want a teenager to have to go through. This is all with just "a few beers." I'm sorry if I sound really harsh with this, but it just does not add up. When you drive a car, you are essentially piloting a multi-ton piece of machinery at lethal speeds. Why would it not require precision skill to do that? Airline pilots go through very rigorous training to operate their multi-ton pieces of machinery at lethal speeds. What, essentially, makes a car any different. It still affects other people's lives when someone goofs up on the road. Alcohol causes some pretty serious goof-ups.
Again, I defend very tough sentencing for DUIs and, if possible (which I know is not possible), a complete ban on alcohol. Tobacco products, while not so physically impairing, are right up there with alcohol. They cause nothing but pain and heartache for those who use them and for loved ones of the users. Recent studies indicate that second-hand smoke is potentially more dangerous than smoking the cigarette first hand.
Let's clean this mess up, people.
The substances I speak of are alcohol and tobacco products. These products have very little, if any, redeemable value, yet they are packaged as if they were fit for a king. Go to the store and see for yourself. Normal, everyday products are packaged in normal, everyday packaging. This wrapping is often done quickly and in a cost-sensitive manner. Not so with alcohol and tobacco. The wrapping is very elaborate and expensive. Look at a bottle of wine, for instance. The labeling is often printed on very nice, high-fiber paper with ornate designs that include elegant fonts and often gold gilding. Would you find that on a loaf of bread, or a box of crackers? No, you probably wouldn't. However, bread and crackers probably aren't going to ruin a person's life and relationships. But alcohol will. Tobacco products are similarly packaged. Cigars often come with very ornate packaging and are stored in expensive humidors. Cigarettes come very carefully packaged in containers with very elaborate blends of tobacco and other poisons mixed to create certain flavors and sensations.
It's all horse shit, folks. That's all it is. These items are nothing more than despair, heartache, and death wrapped up in very special packaging and made to look appealing. What about the young mother whose delinquent husband beats her and abuses her children because of the alcohol toxicity in his body? Or what about the family whose lives are forever disrupted because a stranger decided to drink and drive? Or what about the gentleman who now needs to breath through a tracheotomy because of pharyngeal cancer brought on by cigarettes? Do these things sound glamorous or appealing in any way? Alcohol and tobacco cause these kinds of problems. They do not solve anything. Period. There was never anything good brought about by a drink or a smoke.
Families are torn apart because of these things. I mainly level my sights on alcohol because of the misery I have personally witnessed in the presence of a drink. People drink because they think it will solve their problems. Bull crap. It never solved anything. You'll get the same effect drinking turpentine or drinking gasoline. It's all toxic. Alcohol is toxic and impairs the body from its normal functions. Granted gasoline, turpentine, paint thinner, etc. will generally cause more severe problems much more quickly than a drink of scotch, but it's all the same. Over time, you'll see the kinds of effects brought on by alcohol consumption.
Alcohol only causes problems and makes existing problems worse. Talk to anyone convicted of driving under the influence. They'll tell you some pretty nasty horror stories. In fact, I just finished watching a film on the Farmers Insurance site which features a young man (among others) who decided that it was okay to drink and drive. Because of his drinking and driving, two of his friends are now dead and he served four years in prison with six more years of pretty serious probation. That's not something you want a teenager to have to go through. This is all with just "a few beers." I'm sorry if I sound really harsh with this, but it just does not add up. When you drive a car, you are essentially piloting a multi-ton piece of machinery at lethal speeds. Why would it not require precision skill to do that? Airline pilots go through very rigorous training to operate their multi-ton pieces of machinery at lethal speeds. What, essentially, makes a car any different. It still affects other people's lives when someone goofs up on the road. Alcohol causes some pretty serious goof-ups.
Again, I defend very tough sentencing for DUIs and, if possible (which I know is not possible), a complete ban on alcohol. Tobacco products, while not so physically impairing, are right up there with alcohol. They cause nothing but pain and heartache for those who use them and for loved ones of the users. Recent studies indicate that second-hand smoke is potentially more dangerous than smoking the cigarette first hand.
Let's clean this mess up, people.
Friday, February 02, 2007
iTunes and Stuff
Okay, I'm just a little miffed at Apple, Inc. I think they build very nice equipment, though as a personal aside, I do not think they are as godlike as they would like people to believe. Other companies know how to build good stuff too.
However, that aside, my issue with Apple is over QuickTime. Why the heck can't I simply download the QuickTime player like I used to? No, now they make me download the stupid iTunes application which bundled with QuickTime weighs in at some 36 megs. When I install it, it blows up to around 75 megs. What's up with that? I don't have an iPod, so I really don't need iTunes. And I'm certainly not going to bow to their music dictatorship. They need to think about the customers a little bit more before I go out and spend my hard-earned money on songs that I can't possibly replace. Blasted digital rights crap.
Anyway, so what I really want is just a lightweight QuickTime player for online QuickTime content. I don't need a fancy (and impossibly slow) music player gumming up my system. I just don't need it. iTunes may work great on Macs, but as far as I've seen, it sucks on Windows boxes (which, by the way are infinitely more customizable than a Mac.)
Now, you may ask why I get all up in arms about the amount of hard disk space a certain application takes. Sure, I have a multi-gigabyte hard drive, but I like to not have gi-normous applications to do things like play music. If an application is going to be a heavyweight, it needs to act the part, such as a Web development platform, or a graphics development system, not a media player.
Anyhow, enough of my ranting. It's time to go to bed.
So let it be written; so let it be done.
However, that aside, my issue with Apple is over QuickTime. Why the heck can't I simply download the QuickTime player like I used to? No, now they make me download the stupid iTunes application which bundled with QuickTime weighs in at some 36 megs. When I install it, it blows up to around 75 megs. What's up with that? I don't have an iPod, so I really don't need iTunes. And I'm certainly not going to bow to their music dictatorship. They need to think about the customers a little bit more before I go out and spend my hard-earned money on songs that I can't possibly replace. Blasted digital rights crap.
Anyway, so what I really want is just a lightweight QuickTime player for online QuickTime content. I don't need a fancy (and impossibly slow) music player gumming up my system. I just don't need it. iTunes may work great on Macs, but as far as I've seen, it sucks on Windows boxes (which, by the way are infinitely more customizable than a Mac.)
Now, you may ask why I get all up in arms about the amount of hard disk space a certain application takes. Sure, I have a multi-gigabyte hard drive, but I like to not have gi-normous applications to do things like play music. If an application is going to be a heavyweight, it needs to act the part, such as a Web development platform, or a graphics development system, not a media player.
Anyhow, enough of my ranting. It's time to go to bed.
So let it be written; so let it be done.
Labels: applications, iTunes, QuickTime, Windows
