Re: Is FreeBSD more secure than Windows NT or Windows 2000?
Thank you all for your generous info on encryption. Hmmm, now I don't know what Microsoft actually meant when they advertised Windows NT, 2000 was Truly Secure! It meant, believe us in all we say and do! Give us your money because you will believe whatever we say It's all advertising (aka. propaganda). Ciao. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
Re: installworld fails when installing perl
Hmm, that's interesting. I cvsup'd at ~4AM yesterday, updated my source from my repos., did a buildworld, and just now did an installworld of it and I had no problems. -- Close your eyes. Now forget what you see. What do you feel? -- My heart. -- Come here. -- Your heart. -- See? We're exactly the same. Jon Smith -- Senior Math Major @ Purdue On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Bruce Albrecht wrote: I cvsupped yesterday, and did: make buildworld make buildkernel KERNEL=celery make installkernel KERNEL=celery reboot in single user mode make installworld and it died with this: === gnu/usr.bin/perl/perl many install messages later cd sdbm make all rm -rf libsdbm.a ar cr libsdbm.a sdbm.o pair.o hash.o : libsdbm.a chmod 755 libsdbm.a chmod:No such file or directory *** Error code 1 Rather than having a half-installed system, I did a make -k installworld, and completed the installation. I also tried running make release, and it died at the same place. I didn't see any recent commits to perl since my last buildworld that would account for this. Any ideas? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: burncd...
I had similar trouble, but can burn under windows (except 2k which is buggy) j. -- Close your eyes. Now forget what you see. What do you feel? -- My heart. -- Come here. -- Your heart. -- See? We're exactly the same. Jon Smith -- Senior Math Major @ Purdue On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Michael Matsumura wrote: On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:51:25PM +0100, Ben Smithurst wrote: Michael Matsumura wrote: What's the status on the development of burncd? Looks like it hasn't been updated since the beginning of March...is it stable? I can't burn a CD without it failing with the following: burncd is fairly simple, and it looks to me like this is a problem either in the atapicd driver or with your hardware. I could burn CDs in linux with cdrecord, so its probably not my hardware...damn :\ Is there a better way to burn a CD with an ATAPI cd-rw? There are some scripts in /usr/share/examples/atapi, which you might get to use. If you get better results, you might like to investigate what the two programs to differently and try to fix burncd. [root:~]# ls -l /usr/share/examples/atapi/ total 0 [root:~]# ls -l /usr/src/share/examples/atapi gnuls: /usr/src/share/examples/atapi: No such file or directory Thanks for the MX record information...learn something new every day... :) -- Michael Matsumura [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: buildkernel
I think the purpose is to cause the kernel builds and installs to work right. I would HOPE everyone could agree on that as a "purpose." Some people have made suggestions such as, "if you're using the same system, (ie. the -RELEASE people), don't require a whole buildowrld..." Why not accept this as Voodoo Black Magic, and simply line up the features you'd like? A) Check for this, B) Check for that . and ask them to implement them? If they really don't like the idea, then _maybe_ they will try to solve the problem in a different way? Just an obscure idea -- Close your eyes. Now forget what you see. What do you feel? -- My heart. -- Come here. -- Your heart. -- See? We're exactly the same. Jon Smith -- Senior Math Major @ Purdue To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Previous Message on /etc/defaults
I, personally, have no need of /etc/defaults and typically disable it, anyway. Since the whole thing is environment variables, why not make /etc/rc.conf and /etc/make.conf _include_ the ones in /etc/defaults (first thing in the file) (if they exist, obviously)? At which point, those of us who don't use the features [of the defaults] can simply copy the onese in the defaults directory over the ones in /etc (thus putting the entire file in completely AND removing the inclusion of /etc/defualts files... This, also, enforces the idea that defaults are defaults and the ones in the etc directory are the final authority. Just an idea :) -- Close your eyes. Now forget what you see. What do you feel? -- My heart. -- Come here. -- Your heart. -- See? We're exactly the same. Jon Smith -- Senior Math Major @ Purdue To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Previous Message on /etc/defaults
My $0.02: I thinks it's a good idea for /etc/defaults/whatever to set the defaults and then load any customizations for /etc/whatever. Personally, I *like* having small /etc/whatever files with just my entries to worry about. And if we call defaults from the /etc copy, you have to first have an /etc version, or else the defaults don't get loaded at all... *grins* That's your choice, I'm not saying to take it away from you. We already have to have an etc version, either that or sysinstall generates it. Either way, it gets created. history I started with slackware almost 4 years ago I personally had a nightmare getting things done in the sysv way of things, all the various config files just get the system started. Then, one of the local 'experts' had me try FreeBSD. (This was in the 2.2.x days ;) I had one main config file that I had to edit that listed nearly [if not] all of the main options to get my machine up. I think that was the first (and one of the biggest) reasons I stayed with FreeBSD. /history Since then, I've been frustrated by the defaults directory; however, I do realise it's value in large networks. I don't want that removed, but I think it'd be nice to be able to remove it more easily. As I said, my suggestion also makes it quite obvious that the defaults are just that. j. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: /etc/rc.shutdown calls local scripts now
Personally, I've always LOVED simply setting options for the system in
rc.conf and make.conf They are all listed, and I just change the ones
I want. I hate haveing to look through LOTS of files for this that or the
other config option.
At the same time, I agree, it's a pain to go 'grep'n around rc.* to figure
out how to bring something up. Having some startup script _I_ can run is
a nice thing TM.
I see _a_ soloution to the whole thing, but I let my two cents float or
sink
j.
--
Close your eyes. Now forget what you see. What do you feel? --
My heart. -- Come here. -- Your heart. -- See? We're exactly the same.
Jon Smith -- Senior Math Major @ Purdue
On 7 Jul 2000, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
Steve Roome [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 11:16:05AM -0500, David Scheidt wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Linh Pham wrote:
:
: Can we have little green "[ OK ]"s as well? :)
:
: j/k
:
:I hope you are joking... LOL... We don't want Linux emulation to go in
:that direction.
HP/UX does something like this. I find it rather useful, but that may be
because I have boxes that take almost an hour to boot
It's a general SYSVism I think, but on the whole I find it to be a
pain, most of the things that happen at startup (on my HP-UX boxes)
could happen in the background, but because someone has made them all
sequential, so that they can all put ok's or not ok's on the screen it
it's the general SYSV way to run scripts sequentially, not HP-UX ones.
means that after the 15 odd minutes of hardware testing that these
machines do on bootup I then have to wait another 10 minutes until
it's really started, and the same again when I want to shutdown.
The problem with that of course, is that I end up just calling reboot,
rather than bothering to wait for the shutdown - which is probably not
what should be encouraged.
on a client machine, right. but on a server running some sort of databases...
I'd hate to see FreeBSD go the same way, it's nice to have the
information available, but having a lot of sequential startup/shutdown
scripts is a pain - and when say SNMP (early starter/stopper) hangs,
the box won't boot or shutdown until someone kills off that process,
which might involve a walk to the machine room.
well, too much informations, kills informations. I'd like the way HP-UX
goes. just a summary and if an error occur, look at /var/adm/rc.log
for error messages. I've even implemented this under FreeBSD :)
It's a pain, and seems to be just there to look nice. (IMHO)
Unless someone wants to do the same sort of system, but one that runs
in parallel - that I'd like.
at work, I run SYSV based OSes (HP-UX, Solaris, IRIX). from my point of view,
the bests startup scripts are HP-UX ones located in /etc^H^H^Hsbin/init.d
and configuration files located in /etc/rc.config.d. I'd like the idea to
stop/restart a service just by doing /sbin/init.d/nis.server stop/start.
I although like the way to number them in /etc/rc?.d, so they start in the
order you want. just like BSD /etc/rc files. but if you need to restart
some services, you don't have to egrep it in /etc/rc* to find the right
command and arguments like I need to do under BSD systems.
it's a pain to do something like ps -ef|awk '/yp/!/awk/{print $1}|xargs kill
if a process is missing, just do /sbin/init.d/nis.server start and it restart
the missing process. no need to stop all of them to have the right way like
needed under Solaris. yes, under HP-UX, a service isn't started if it's already
running.
PS : of course, I'm talking about HP-UX 10.x, not HP-UX 9.x which make uses
of /etc/rc files like BSD does :)
Cyrille.
--
home:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Supprimer "no-spam." pour me repondre.
work:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove "no-spam." to answer me back.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Bad apache ports on stable 4.0
CC'd to ports where it belongs. (Please respond only there as I don't think this is a -stable issue). I'd like to suggest they add this to the messages that says to hadd the handler lines, it certainly would have saved me grief -- and you. I had the same problems (and a few worse ones). To get php working, you need to manually add the following lines to tell apache that the module exist (in addition to defining that certain files should use the handlers): In Dynamic Shared Object (DSO) Support: Append to the list of LoadModule lines: LoadModule php4_modulelibexec/apache/libphp4.so Append to the list of AddModule lines: AddModule mod_php4.c j. -- Close your eyes. Now forget what you see. What do you feel? -- My heart. -- Come here. -- Your heart. -- See? We're exactly the same. Jon Smith -- Senior Math Major @ Purdue On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Michael wrote: I went from 4.0 release to 4.0 stable and when I installed apache and modphp4 from ports the php4 side of it doesnt work. It all compiles fine (apache and the php4 /usr/ports/www/mod_php4) but the end result was either apache would load and any .php I requested would be downloaded instead of executed or apache wouldnt even load. And yes I was adding AddType application/x-httpd-php .php and AddType application/x-httpd-php-source .phps to the apache confile file I sat there for about 24 hours worth of compiling most of the apache choices(apache13, apache13-ssl, apache13-modssl) in ports and deleteing and adding the modphp4 and they all gave the same results. I kept trying because I had faith that it was something I wasnt doing and not the stable ports, but after a while I belived it was the modphp4 that wasnt getting compiled properly even though there wasn't any error messages in the compile. I downloaded php4 from the www.php.net web site compiled/installed it (I used apache from ports) and apache worked with php first time. So I belive the /usr/ports/www/mod_php4 is dodgey and what happened to the nice menu you used to get when installing apache from ports with the options to choose mysql and php etc? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
