Re: 2 networks
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Allan M. Wind wrote: > On 2000-03-24 05:40:37, The_Phantom 74 wrote: > > I KNOW OF A PRODUCT ... > All caps spam, it can't get much worse. How is it spam when he was just answering the question? Or are you simply too ready to jump to conclusions? -- Hecubus
Re: buy debian linux
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Christian Surchi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 12:33:10AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? > Interesting subject, but I have some problems with the concepts you > express... ;) Like, open your mind, man. Yeah. ;) -- Hecubus
Re: Debian
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Bart Friederichs wrote: > Switching to Debian was necessary because the store didn't sell slack. Yeah, most stores don't sell Slack. Anyone store that would proport to sell it is probably marketing False Slack, which is better than nothing, but not nearly as fulfilling as the real thing. But then again, either you have Slack or you don't. -- Hecubus, so bad today "Give me Slack or kill me."
Re: I Screwed up WindowMaker
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Matheson wrote: > I just upgraded WindowMaker on my slink from > http://www.debian.org/~vincent/, but now it doesn't work. When I start > X Windows, it starts to display the appicon and stuff, but then it goes > back to the login screen. My recommendation is to install the wmaker package from the frozen directory. -- Hecubus
Re: Replacing system hard drive?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Jerry E. McGoveran wrote: > My hard drive is starting to make noise, so I bought a replacement. > What is the recommended way to make the switch? Symantec Norton Ghost. http://www.ghost.com/ -- Hecubus
Re: Lying to dpkg?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Phoenix Amon wrote: > As the variety of responses to my question suggest, there's often more > than one way to skin a cat. :) Ahh... but the different responses addressed the different options you posted. I answered to the specific question of how to make dpkg behave a certain way. "There's more than one way to skin a cat, but only half of them are fun." -- Hecubus
Re: Lying to dpkg?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Phoenix Amon wrote: > > 2. RTFM; it's right there. "man dpkg" (if you've installed man-db). > Sometimes TFM doesn't give quite enough info if you don't already know > what you're looking for. In a lot of cases TFM serves you well if you > know what you're doing and need to jog your memory, but not so well as > a learning tool. I learned how to use dpkg from reading the man page. The thing is, you did know that for which you were looking, else I wouldn't have been able to find the answer. Before you asked, I didn't know how to do it (because I never wanted to). > All I'm saying is that to a newbie, package management as it's > currently implemented tends to feel restrictive. It would seem that > those more knowledgable often agree, as the debates about whether to > make updates to stable fly fast and free. I think it's just restrictive enough. At the basic level, it prevents newbies from doing harm to their own systems. However, there exist directives which will allow you to do whatever you want with it, moving from being restricted to being given a warning that you could seriously screw yourself. Given the proper syntax, dpkg allows you to do things it would not advise, basically reverting to, "I wouldn't do that if I were you, but it's your computer. You're on your own, pal." > Like you said, I could just avoid using it entirely... but I like it. > It's a big time saver. I'd just like to see it get a bit more > flexible. Finding ways to work around the system seems to be the topic > of a lot of posts around here, and it shouldn't have to be. Lots of easy questions are posted to lists like this because people don't bother to read the most obvious documentation. That doesn't mean that the system needs to be changed. Dpkg is flexible, but you need to know how to use it; the information you need is already on your system. "UNIX is user-friendly. It's just really selective about who it befriends." -- Hecubus
Re: Lying to dpkg?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Phoenix Amon wrote: > Is there anyway I can lie to dpkg to convince it that I really do have > these packages installed? Two things: 1. Use the --ignore-depends flag. 2. RTFM; it's right there. "man dpkg" (if you've installed man-db). > Forgive my ignorance... I'd never seen Linux until about a week ago... > and right now I must say that package management has a real > heavy-handed big-brotherish feeling to me. Seems like Debian is > controlling what I install under Linux more than MS ever controlled > what I installed under Win. Debian is good at alleviating the pain of dependencies. Having started working with Linux on early Slackware, I know the horror of manually configuring everything. Moreover, comparing Debian's package management system to MS's won't work, because they don't do nearly the same thing. Most importaqntly, you're under no obligation to use dpkg, as you've clearly already demonstrated to yourself. It is ultimately just Linux, after all. -- Hecubus
Re: A little bad press about Debian
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Patrick wrote: > It has to be said that running one distro is easier to manage. At > work we have Win NT Server, Red Hat, FreeBSD and a solitary mail > server running Debian as a result of my evangelising. The diversity > is a pain when for example we want to work on the FreeBSD box and > no-one knows where any files are. Yes, but is that any more of a pain than running the NT server in tandem? I mean, it's not as if the FreeBSD boxes run the same operating system as the Debian and Red Hat systems. Ultimately, it's the similarity between FreeBSD and Linux that's confusing you, not really the differences. Of course, I'm the guy who tries to run every OS at home, just for the fun and experience. -- Hecubus
Re: undoing `apt-get upgrade`?
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Jeremy Gaddis wrote: > Is there any way to "undo" my `apt-get upgrade` so that it will remove > these packages from the list of packages to be updated? You should be able to get away with: apt-get --no-upgrade install Theoretically, it should signal that installed packages are not to be upgraded. I've never tried it for this, but it should work. "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice" -- Hecubus
Re: ssh loading at startup
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Bob Nielsen wrote: > Installing the ssh package SHOULD do that for you. Oh, that's the easy answer for so many questions posted here. I'm still trying to figure out the resistance to using Debian's package management system, when that's my favorite thing about the distribution. -- Hecubus, observing
Re: 1. lynx bug? 2. ssh and https_proxy?
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Shaul Karl wrote: > [04:36:00 /tmp]$ grep ^STARTFILE /etc/lynx.cfg > STARTFILE:file://etc/motd/ > Yet lynx insists on startup to look for ftp://etc/motd Try: file://localhost//etc/motd I think you'll be pleased with the results. I learned how to do this by reading the instructions in my lynx.cfg. It's documented, so it's not a bug. Oh, and /etc/motd is not a directory, so don't address it as such. Even if you'd had the syntax correct, that trailing slash would have broken it anyway. -- Hecubus
Re: Networking
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > I guess my real question is, can I do a connect like this: > > > > inet > hub ---> box1 > > | > > +-> box2 > "of course" you cannot do so, because the second box would need a > separate global ip. Yes, you can do so, as long as you tell box2 to route its traffic through box1. You did know that the gateway is a wholly logical and not physical connection, didn't you? If it's possible to give Box2 a global IP, then do it. Conversely, box2 can have an internal IP, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be directly physically connected to box1. > > inet ---> box1 ---> hub ---> box2 > this is the right one, but you don't need the hub - a crossed tp-cable > would do it, too. ...unless you want to add more boxes at any point. > > And, if I do that second setup, won't I need two NIC's on box1, one > > ingoing & one outgoing? > you need two nics. ...for setup2; not setup1. You can assign multiple IPs to 1 NIC. -- Hecubus
Re: Sendmail and virtual e-mail on debian
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Jason Laster wrote: > What can I put in my sendmail.mc file on my Debian box to have all > mail sorted (i.e., send [EMAIL PROTECTED] to "user"'s mbox) I have tried > virtusertable in the .mc file but that just seems to bounce everyting > to root's mbox. Any help or direction would be helpful. http://www.sendmail.org/virtual-hosting.html ...should have everything you need. -- Hecubus
Re: MegaRAID under 2.2
> I've been trying to run the install for Debian potato (frozen) on > a Dell PowerEdge 4400, but it won't recognize the installed Dell > PERC2/DC (AMI MegaRAID) controller. Oddly enough, I've been able to get this to boot from the base slink install (2.0.36), but am unable to get this to work when I try to use potato or upgrade the kernel to 2.2.x, after recompiling in megaraid support. I tried booting it from the slink CD on a whim; I didn't actually expect it to work. Unfortunately, I need 2.2.x for Lotus Domino and SMP support, so leaving it at 2.0.36 is not an option, as appealing as that may seem. -- Hecubus
MegaRAID under 2.2
I've been trying to run the install for Debian 2.2 (frozen) on a Dell PowerEdge 4400, but it won't recognize the installed Dell PERC2/DC (AMI MegaRAID) controller. I've even gone so far as to recompile my own kernel and configure it onto the rescue disk, but to no avail. It boots - listing nothing under the megaraid kernel prompt - and denies the existance of a fixed disk when an attempt is made to partition. The RAID is configured and DOS recognizes the logical partition without the use of anything special. Any hints? Condolences? -- Hecubus
