Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 01:41 +0800, Bret Busby wrote: > However, on the web page at > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Multibooting , under the heading > "4.8 - Multibooting OpenBSD/i386" > is > "Only one of the four primary MBR partitions can be used for booting > OpenBSD (i.e., extended partitions will not work)." > > Whilst it would be a 64 bit version that would be intended to be > installed, to be able to use the full 4GB of RAM, I am concerned at the > reference to "the four primary MBR partitions". > > Does this mean that only four OS's can be installed, for multiple > booting? My understanding is that different OS's have different requirements. So I don't think it is true to say "only four OS's can be installed" on one disc, but there are some OS's that must be installed on a primary partition (or at least have their boot partitions on a primary partition). Linux OS's can be installed on logical partitions, and at least some versions of MS Windows can also. AFAIK, the BSD's need the boot slice (at least) installed on a primary partition. I'm pretty sure, though, that not all BSD slices need to be on primary partitions. (For one thing, you can spread your installation over two or more hard drives, and I don't remember reading that those additional slices need to be on primary partitions.) Personally, I found it tricky to get my head around the BSD slice concept, not because it's difficult, but just because I was so used to the "usual" notions of primary, extended, and logical partitions. Slices are a whole other layer you have to incorporate into your thinking. You really have to read the docs and get yourself comfortable with how BSD does things. -- Michael M. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Bret Busby wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 2009, Neal Hogan wrote: > >> >> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bret Busby wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 2 May 2009, Neal Hogan wrote: >>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > > On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 06:27:44AM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > >> FYI - While many of the fBSD folks will tout there ports/package >> system, I found it to be a pain (especially the upgrade), as did many >> others. There has recently been some chatter on their general mailing >> list to overhaul how they handle packages. Again, I found oBSD's >> package handling system to be superior. > > Last I looked (last week), OBSD doesn't have security updates (patches) > for their packages; they only provide patches for the base release. If > you want to run -current, then the packages get security patches. > Since > I'm on dialup, that would mean a lot of bandwidth time; basically, > every > time firefox or some third-party app required a security fix, I'd have > to download the source for _everything_ and recompile _everything_. I don't want to labor this point here, but just one more thing. If you are going to follow current, the recommended way to go about it is to do binary upgrades of the kernel (i.e, snapshots). You don't have to compile src every time. The same goes for packages, binary snapshots of which are updated every few months or so (probably not that often). http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html >>> >>> Ah. >>> >>> Maybe it's too complicated for me. >>> >>> I was only ever a user on someone else's (educational instritution's) BSD >>> system, and did not do, or learn, sysadmin on BSD. >>> >>> As a Linux user since around Red Hat 4 or 5, I have never compiled >>> anything >>> in Linux, and have relied on package management, and have had problems >>> with >>> software that involved using.tar.gz files to install, to the extent that >>> I >>> gave up on any package that involved using .tar.gz files to install. >>> >>> So, if BSD is more complicated than using package management like RPM in >>> Red >>> Hat and .deb in Debian/Ubuntu, then it is probably too complicated for >>> me. >> >> >> It's not . . . http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html >> >>> >>> -- >>> Bret Busby >>> Armadale >>> West Australia >>> .. >> > > One more thing, regarding the above; multiple booting. > > On a (relatively) new laptop, that has 160GB of HDD space, thus leading to > the potential for multiple booting (at 20GB per OS, plus about 40GB for > data, that is many OS's), I was thinking (as it supposedly comes with both > Windows Vista, and Windows XP preinstalled) that it could be possible to > have multiple booting with Win Vista, Win XP, Debian Linux, Ubuntu Linux, > and one or more BSD's (OpenBSD and FreeBSD, possibly), and thus, six OS's to > play with (and learn). > > However, on the web page at > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Multibooting , under the heading "4.8 - > Multibooting OpenBSD/i386" > is > "Only one of the four primary MBR partitions can be used for booting OpenBSD > (i.e., extended partitions will not work)." > > Whilst it would be a 64 bit version that would be intended to be installed, > to be able to use the full 4GB of RAM, I am concerned at the reference to > "the four primary MBR partitions". > > Does this mean that only four OS's can be installed, for multiple booting? > > Whilst this may be digressing, a bit, into BSD stuff, I think that it is > still relevant here, as it relates to multiple booting, involving Debian, > and, to what extent it can be done, without having to resort to virtual > machines like VMWare. > > Thank you in anticipation. > While I don't know the answer to your particular concern, perhaps you should ask it on the oBSD mailing list m...@openbsd.org. It seems like a reasonable question, given that you've done some homework. At the very least, you can check the list's archive (http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&r=1&w=2) to see if anyone else has brought up a similar issue . . . in fact I suggest you check the archive before posting to the list. Good luck! > -- > Bret Busby > Armadale > West Australia > .. > > "So once you do know what the question actually is, > you'll know what the answer means." > - Deep Thought, > Chapter 28 of Book 1 of > "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: > A Trilogy In Four Parts", > written by Douglas Adams, > published by Pan Books, 1992 > > -- www.nealhogan.net www.lambdaserver.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Neal Hogan wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bret Busby wrote: On Sat, 2 May 2009, Neal Hogan wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 06:27:44AM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: FYI - While many of the fBSD folks will tout there ports/package system, I found it to be a pain (especially the upgrade), as did many others. There has recently been some chatter on their general mailing list to overhaul how they handle packages. Again, I found oBSD's package handling system to be superior. Last I looked (last week), OBSD doesn't have security updates (patches) for their packages; they only provide patches for the base release. ?If you want to run -current, then the packages get security patches. ?Since I'm on dialup, that would mean a lot of bandwidth time; basically, every time firefox or some third-party app required a security fix, I'd have to download the source for _everything_ and recompile _everything_. I don't want to labor this point here, but just one more thing. If you are going to follow current, the recommended way to go about it is to do binary upgrades of the kernel (i.e, snapshots). You don't have to compile src every time. The same goes for packages, binary snapshots of which are updated every few months or so (probably not that often). http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html Ah. Maybe it's too complicated for me. I was only ever a user on someone else's (educational instritution's) BSD system, and did not do, or learn, sysadmin on BSD. As a Linux user since around Red Hat 4 or 5, I have never compiled anything in Linux, and have relied on package management, and have had problems with software that involved using.tar.gz files to install, to the extent that I gave up on any package that involved using .tar.gz files to install. So, if BSD is more complicated than using package management like RPM in Red Hat and .deb in Debian/Ubuntu, then it is probably too complicated for me. It's not . . . http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. One more thing, regarding the above; multiple booting. On a (relatively) new laptop, that has 160GB of HDD space, thus leading to the potential for multiple booting (at 20GB per OS, plus about 40GB for data, that is many OS's), I was thinking (as it supposedly comes with both Windows Vista, and Windows XP preinstalled) that it could be possible to have multiple booting with Win Vista, Win XP, Debian Linux, Ubuntu Linux, and one or more BSD's (OpenBSD and FreeBSD, possibly), and thus, six OS's to play with (and learn). However, on the web page at http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Multibooting , under the heading "4.8 - Multibooting OpenBSD/i386" is "Only one of the four primary MBR partitions can be used for booting OpenBSD (i.e., extended partitions will not work)." Whilst it would be a 64 bit version that would be intended to be installed, to be able to use the full 4GB of RAM, I am concerned at the reference to "the four primary MBR partitions". Does this mean that only four OS's can be installed, for multiple booting? Whilst this may be digressing, a bit, into BSD stuff, I think that it is still relevant here, as it relates to multiple booting, involving Debian, and, to what extent it can be done, without having to resort to virtual machines like VMWare. Thank you in anticipation. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 07:01:39AM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bret Busby wrote: > > On Sat, 2 May 2009, Neal Hogan wrote: > >> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > >>> On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 06:27:44AM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > > So, if BSD is more complicated than using package management like RPM in Red > > Hat and .deb in Debian/Ubuntu, then it is probably too complicated for me. > > > It's not . . . http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html The ports system works very easily, very similar to apt-get. However, right now, they don't have security updates for ports in -stable. If you run -current and want to update a port, AFAIK, you have to upgrade to the next snapshot for the whole system. For me, that's a lot of bandwidth on dialup. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bret Busby wrote: > On Sat, 2 May 2009, Neal Hogan wrote: > >> >> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 06:27:44AM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: >>> FYI - While many of the fBSD folks will tout there ports/package system, I found it to be a pain (especially the upgrade), as did many others. There has recently been some chatter on their general mailing list to overhaul how they handle packages. Again, I found oBSD's package handling system to be superior. >>> >>> Last I looked (last week), OBSD doesn't have security updates (patches) >>> for their packages; they only provide patches for the base release. If >>> you want to run -current, then the packages get security patches. Since >>> I'm on dialup, that would mean a lot of bandwidth time; basically, every >>> time firefox or some third-party app required a security fix, I'd have >>> to download the source for _everything_ and recompile _everything_. >> >> I don't want to labor this point here, but just one more thing. If you >> are going to follow current, the recommended way to go about it is to >> do binary upgrades of the kernel (i.e, snapshots). You don't have to >> compile src every time. The same goes for packages, binary snapshots >> of which are updated every few months or so (probably not that often). >> >> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html >> >> > > Ah. > > Maybe it's too complicated for me. > > I was only ever a user on someone else's (educational instritution's) BSD > system, and did not do, or learn, sysadmin on BSD. > > As a Linux user since around Red Hat 4 or 5, I have never compiled anything > in Linux, and have relied on package management, and have had problems with > software that involved using.tar.gz files to install, to the extent that I > gave up on any package that involved using .tar.gz files to install. > > So, if BSD is more complicated than using package management like RPM in Red > Hat and .deb in Debian/Ubuntu, then it is probably too complicated for me. It's not . . . http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html > > -- > Bret Busby > Armadale > West Australia > .. > > "So once you do know what the question actually is, > you'll know what the answer means." > - Deep Thought, > Chapter 28 of Book 1 of > "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: > A Trilogy In Four Parts", > written by Douglas Adams, > published by Pan Books, 1992 > > -- www.nealhogan.net www.lambdaserver.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Neal Hogan wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 06:27:44AM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: FYI - While many of the fBSD folks will tout there ports/package system, I found it to be a pain (especially the upgrade), as did many others. There has recently been some chatter on their general mailing list to overhaul how they handle packages. Again, I found oBSD's package handling system to be superior. Last I looked (last week), OBSD doesn't have security updates (patches) for their packages; they only provide patches for the base release. If you want to run -current, then the packages get security patches. Since I'm on dialup, that would mean a lot of bandwidth time; basically, every time firefox or some third-party app required a security fix, I'd have to download the source for _everything_ and recompile _everything_. I don't want to labor this point here, but just one more thing. If you are going to follow current, the recommended way to go about it is to do binary upgrades of the kernel (i.e, snapshots). You don't have to compile src every time. The same goes for packages, binary snapshots of which are updated every few months or so (probably not that often). http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html Ah. Maybe it's too complicated for me. I was only ever a user on someone else's (educational instritution's) BSD system, and did not do, or learn, sysadmin on BSD. As a Linux user since around Red Hat 4 or 5, I have never compiled anything in Linux, and have relied on package management, and have had problems with software that involved using.tar.gz files to install, to the extent that I gave up on any package that involved using .tar.gz files to install. So, if BSD is more complicated than using package management like RPM in Red Hat and .deb in Debian/Ubuntu, then it is probably too complicated for me. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 06:27:44AM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > >> FYI - While many of the fBSD folks will tout there ports/package >> system, I found it to be a pain (especially the upgrade), as did many >> others. There has recently been some chatter on their general mailing >> list to overhaul how they handle packages. Again, I found oBSD's >> package handling system to be superior. > > Last I looked (last week), OBSD doesn't have security updates (patches) > for their packages; they only provide patches for the base release. If > you want to run -current, then the packages get security patches. Since > I'm on dialup, that would mean a lot of bandwidth time; basically, every > time firefox or some third-party app required a security fix, I'd have > to download the source for _everything_ and recompile _everything_. I don't want to labor this point here, but just one more thing. If you are going to follow current, the recommended way to go about it is to do binary upgrades of the kernel (i.e, snapshots). You don't have to compile src every time. The same goes for packages, binary snapshots of which are updated every few months or so (probably not that often). http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html > > I wish I had time to work out a system that would run on base OpenBSD > yet compile debs with OpenBSD's souped-up compiler. Then one would have > the security of OpenBSD with good package security (Debian's security > team with OpenBSD's compiler, with good responsivness). > > All the BSD's have a system to audit your installed packages for ones > listed in a database as being insecure but the follow-on of patches to > fix them is missing. > > Doug. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > > -- www.nealhogan.net www.lambdaserver.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
Well, the thing about FBSD is that it's users are pretty much all hobbyists, so the length of a manual is a good thing. If Debian had documentation of equal or greater length I can only see that as a strength, not a weakness. If you count folks like Yahoo as hobbyists. Last time I looked, the FreeBSD community was heavier on academics and IT professionals than hobbyists. For that matter, if you look at the latest Netcraft survey of most reliable hosting sites (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/04/01/most_reliable_hosting_company_sites_in_march_2009.html) - you'll see an awful lot of FreeBSD as well. I haven't used BSD for about 30 years, now, and a good reference book, that is comprehensive, is a good incentive to have another go with it. Unless you've used a Mac recently - most of it's userland code comes from BSD. Miles Fidelman note: I should mention that I run Debian on my servers - I'd be hard-pressed to find a more convenient packaging system. But I have a lot of respect for the BSD world. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 06:27:44AM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > FYI - While many of the fBSD folks will tout there ports/package > system, I found it to be a pain (especially the upgrade), as did many > others. There has recently been some chatter on their general mailing > list to overhaul how they handle packages. Again, I found oBSD's > package handling system to be superior. Last I looked (last week), OBSD doesn't have security updates (patches) for their packages; they only provide patches for the base release. If you want to run -current, then the packages get security patches. Since I'm on dialup, that would mean a lot of bandwidth time; basically, every time firefox or some third-party app required a security fix, I'd have to download the source for _everything_ and recompile _everything_. I wish I had time to work out a system that would run on base OpenBSD yet compile debs with OpenBSD's souped-up compiler. Then one would have the security of OpenBSD with good package security (Debian's security team with OpenBSD's compiler, with good responsivness). All the BSD's have a system to audit your installed packages for ones listed in a database as being insecure but the follow-on of patches to fix them is missing. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Bret Busby wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Michael Pobega wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 01:12:35PM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: Check out the FreeBSD handbook at: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ It is also available as a pdf which is >1000 pages! It doesn't cover everything, but it does cover a lot. They also have other books and articles at http://www.freebsd.org/docs/books.html. >>> >>> That sounds more like a problem than a solution. I would not try an OS >>> that had a 1000 page manual. I want simple, not comprehensive. >>> >> >> Well, the thing about FBSD is that it's users are pretty much all >> hobbyists, so the length of a manual is a good thing. If Debian had >> documentation of equal or greater length I can only see that as a >> strength, not a weakness. >> >> > > And, if the handbook's content is valid and well structured (with Table of > Contents, and index, etc), it would probably be an incentive for me (and > others) to try FreeBSD (FreeBSD was on a recent Linux Format DVD, from > memory). > > Decent Linux reference books in printed form, tend to be around 1000-1200 > pages. > > Some good ones are less, significantly less, but, provided the content is > useful and helpful, there is no problem with a single volume text being > around 1000 pages. > > I haven't used BSD for about 30 years, now, and a good reference book, that > is comprehensive, is a good incentive to have another go with it. > > I think that the BSD that I last used, was v4.2, running on a VAX 11/785. > > Hmm. I will have to find another free partition, somewhere... I haven't been closely following this thread. So, if I'm out-o-bounds, I apologize . . . But, if you're interested in a BSD with good (dare I say, great) documentation, I would suggest openBSD (which just came out with 4.5 yesterday). FreeBSD is alright (I've been experimenting with there most recent stable version), but I found that oBSD to be a more straightforward, less bloated OS with clear and comprehensive documentation. Some may say that the environment (mailinglist) is harsh, but that harshness can/should be interpreted as directness and it's usually focused on those who provide little/useless info about his/her situation and don't do their homework . . . i.e., read the documentation. FYI - While many of the fBSD folks will tout there ports/package system, I found it to be a pain (especially the upgrade), as did many others. There has recently been some chatter on their general mailing list to overhaul how they handle packages. Again, I found oBSD's package handling system to be superior. Good Luck! > > -- > Bret Busby > Armadale > West Australia > .. > > "So once you do know what the question actually is, > you'll know what the answer means." > - Deep Thought, > Chapter 28 of Book 1 of > "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: > A Trilogy In Four Parts", > written by Douglas Adams, > published by Pan Books, 1992 > > -- www.nealhogan.net www.lambdaserver.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
BSD handbook - was Re: debiantutorials.org seeks input and new blood
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Michael Pobega wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 01:12:35PM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: Check out the FreeBSD handbook at: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ It is also available as a pdf which is >1000 pages! It doesn't cover everything, but it does cover a lot. They also have other books and articles at http://www.freebsd.org/docs/books.html. That sounds more like a problem than a solution. I would not try an OS that had a 1000 page manual. I want simple, not comprehensive. Well, the thing about FBSD is that it's users are pretty much all hobbyists, so the length of a manual is a good thing. If Debian had documentation of equal or greater length I can only see that as a strength, not a weakness. And, if the handbook's content is valid and well structured (with Table of Contents, and index, etc), it would probably be an incentive for me (and others) to try FreeBSD (FreeBSD was on a recent Linux Format DVD, from memory). Decent Linux reference books in printed form, tend to be around 1000-1200 pages. Some good ones are less, significantly less, but, provided the content is useful and helpful, there is no problem with a single volume text being around 1000 pages. I haven't used BSD for about 30 years, now, and a good reference book, that is comprehensive, is a good incentive to have another go with it. I think that the BSD that I last used, was v4.2, running on a VAX 11/785. Hmm. I will have to find another free partition, somewhere... -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
