hhehehe thanks Pier, but I have already evaluated this possibility and this will imply to have a distributed accounting system quite annoying to administer. My idea was to have a central system were developers can connect in a very restricted environment and then telnet to the developer server in a very simple way. In this way developers can have more advantages without any problem. For instance if they are going to destroy something I don't have to get crazy to reinstall the box with tons of things that can break during a development phase (ex ssh, openssl, pam, etc and reinstall the home + keys and things like that) and they don't have to take care of a misconfigured server in order to prevent DoS to my network and things like that.... but right now I didn't get any answer on how they prefer those boxes. So if I will not get anything in few time I will revert them to workstations :)
fabbione Pierfrancesco Caci wrote: > > :-> "Fabbione" == Fabbione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Unfortunatly I will have only one ip address on the real internet that's > > mean that all the developers will have to jump on my "external" server > > and > > from there to the box they need to use but I think this should not be a > > problem. > > You could statically PAT the internal machines so that ssh is > available on, for exampple, 10022 on the first machine, 20022 on the > second and so on. > > I'm sure a firewall guru as you will have fun configuring that :-) > > Pf > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Pierfrancesco Caci | ik5pvx | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - > http://gusp.dyndns.org > Firenze - Italia | Office for the Complication of Otherwise Simple Affairs > Linux penny 2.4.5 #2 Sun Jun 3 09:50:34 CEST 2001 i686 unknown
