[newbie] TEST TEST TEST
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Leave this l i s t ?
How do I leave this l i s t ? I have tried, and tried ... can't find any info. Please help. Thanks. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] video conferencing
I have set up video conferencing on windows machines but not linux. This was a college project from 2 years ago -- I'm not a pro -- that I set up videoconferencing among 4 homes over the Internet. But I did learn a few things. Are you using wine? Not sure which cameras would work with linux. Intel makes a decent camera -- it's the common one you see in the stores -- which is what we used. Aside from compatibility issues, I can offer some general advice. From all the reviews I read, there's not much difference in performance among the low-end cameras. More expensive cameras come with a pci card that increases performance, but it doesn't sound like you will need that. Most, if not all, low-end *new* cameras use usb. I think any new video camera will work fine, if you have usb on your linux machines. Some older cameras use the parallel port, but that is a slower interface and usb is much better. Another consideration is the connection between your computers. As long as your home network uses ethernet, you'll have plenty of bandwidth. I know that there are alternatives out there for home networking, but the more bandwidth you have the better. Even with a 56K modem with a good connection, you get decent results. But with ethernet (and good lighting, see below) you can get flawless videoconferencing. Since you're not going across the internet, fortunately, you won't have to worry about latency, which can be a problem when using microphones. For microphones, I suggest that you get the headset kind: the hand held mics tend to have an irritating echo side effect while you're talking (but that going across the internet, so it might not be bad in a home network). Still, those desktop mics on a stand are just a pain to use. Headsets are much better. A lot of people install linux on older pcs; not sure if that will work well with videoconferencing. I'd use at least a PIII or equivalent. but that's something you can try and see. Videoconferencing is very cpu intensive, so good video cards might are also in order. Don't use old computers with cheap videocards, like the computer I have linux installed on :). The cameras don't do the processing or display the images on your monitor. Low-end cameras really depend on the computer and the video card. Higher end cameras have pci cards to handle that, but you probably won't be buying those, so you probably can't use any old computers. We used Dell PIII 500s. And they were really working sometimes just to produce decent results, with nothing else running. I would imagine that you all will want to be able to do other things while videoconferencing, like surf the net, do work, etc. But that's something you can try and see. Maybe you'll get better results that I would expect. The last thing I can think of is something that people tend to not consider: your rooms' lighting. I found this to be a real problem in one of the home I set up. That person kept having really bad performance problems. The other 3 homes were fine. I found out that the problem was not the camera (after reinstalling everything a few times); the problem was the room's lighting. This person had bad lighting in their living room, where the computer with the camera was located. Low lighting increases the amount of work the computers' cpu must do in order to process the video coming in from the camera. Really bad lighting can slow the computer -- and the video of course -- down a crawl or even freeze the computer. So: 1. get usb cameras (most are probably usb now, anyway). 2. use ethernet (which you probably are) 3. have good lighting, not just a small lamp but really bright lighting. 4. use good computer equipment Mitch PS. I'm glad I finally had something to say on this list! You've helped me out before, Paul. I hope this helps you. Paul RodrÃguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: newbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] om cc: Sent by: Subject: [newbie] video conferencing newbie-owner@linux-m andrake.com 03/07/02 08:44 AM
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED -(permission related)
Exactly. That appears to be the case. And it's a good security idea, no? But very frustrating when you're a newbie and just following basic set up directions for cgi :). The solution I found, for my situation, is to just create the user account as root, and then log on as the user to create the public_html and cgi-bin directories. Then create the scripts, so the directories and scripts are all owned by the user from the start. That's what I did with the second account, and scripts ran fine. Of course, if the user doesn't know how to create directories, then create the directories as root right after creating the account, and then chown them to the user. Thanks! mitch Keith Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] u cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED -(permission related) newbie-owner@linux-ma ndrake.com 01/08/02 01:38 PM Please respond to newbie Mitch, I have not experienced the problem you're having. As a test I took a cgi script that I have running on my web server and changed both the owner and the group to root, and the script still executes. It might be possible that there is an entry in your configuration that prohibits scripts owned by root from being served. Keith Lynn Systems Administrator School of Computer and Information Sciences University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36608 Phone: (334) 460-6390 Fax: (334) 460-7274 Alternate E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~lynn/ On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for the response, but this is really starting to get to me! What do I not have the hang of? Everyone acts like it's soo simple. But there's something else going on. Can someone explain why a cgi file WITH PERMISSIONS SET TO 755 ... would not run, but then would run IMMEDIATELY AFTER CHANGING OWNERSHIP FROM ROOT TO A USER? After the file would run, I changed ownership back to root and the file ***would no longer run***. Then, I changed it back to the user and the file ***would run***. Does anyone have an explanation? If not, that's cool. But please don't say Set the permisisons ... or Read about permissions. Please :) I'm getting to worked up. Lol. It's just that there's something here to understand that is escaping everyone somehow, and I want to understand it. If I'm totally missing something really simple, could someone explain it? whew ... thanks, mitch Anuerin G.Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED -(permission related) ndrake.com 01/08/02 08:32 AM Please respond to newbie On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:35:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But that's what is weird -- the permissions were set to 755. I just did a test. I ran the script, and it worked. Then I changed ownership to root, and it didn't work. I changed it back to mitch, and it worked. Before, when I had changed the ownership of the file with chown, I didn't stop to then modify the permissions. I just went to my windows machine, loaded the html page in the browser, and clicked on the link to the cgi file. And it worked. The only change I had made was ownership from root to the user account mitch.
Re: [newbie] Shell Script
Thanks but I keep getting the same answer. I did*** give permission, as root, for anyone to run the script. I used chmod 755 scriptname, while logged in as root. Still, it wouldn't run from the web page, but it would run from the command line. It just wouldn't run. Period. Then, all I did -- one single thing -- was change ownership with chown to the user who owned the home directory in which the script was located. So, my question was, can root not give permission to run a script in a user's home directory? I know the obivious answer is: sure! But, nevertheless, my script would not run with permission from root. It just wouldn't, until I changed ownership to the user. I can't explain it, which is why I'm asking. Am i missing something here? If so, please tell me -- because there's something going on that apparently no one knows the answer to. It seems obivious and simple and basic, etc. But it's not. Why do I keep getting answers like, Change permission ... There's a difference between permission and ownership Read about permissions, it's all explained ... I know I know !! :) See past postings. I do know the difference between permissions and ownership. Changing the permissions did nothing; changing the ownership did -- which is _why_ I came here for some enlightenment. My question is: how could changing the ownership of the file to a user would magically allow the file to run, whereas having the file owned by root would not allow it to run? The file is in the user's home directory. Thanks for the help, but I give up :). No one seems to understand what I'm asking. Oh well ... I know it doesn't make sense. That's why it's sooo weird. How else can I explain it? I guess it's just time to let this one die. After all, the script is working now. Hooray! mitch Pascal Goguey [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [newbie] Shell Script newbie-owner@linux-ma ndrake.com 01/07/02 08:18 PM Please respond to newbie On 2002.01.07, at 23:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This brings up a question about permissions ... So a script (or any executable, such as a perl script written for cgi) cannot be run by anyone other than root, if it was created by root? I mean, root can't give permission for a root-owned script to be world executable, even if the administrator wanted to? While I can see how doing that would be a very bad idea, in terms of security, I'm just asking in order to learn more about linux file permissions. No, you should not confuse permissions and ownership. Ownership and permissions are independent. When you run ls -al from the shell, you have the permission string first and then the owner and the group. As root, you can allow anybody to run anything. Suppose your script is called rootownedscript, you can allow anybody to run it by typing chmod o+x rootownedscript (o means other, x means execute, therefore chmod o+x = make executable for other). Well, if you read the manual (type man chmod from a terminal), you will know everything about chmod. But as a warning, be careful to what you allow to your users... I wouldn't recommend to allow diskdrake or other funny tools to be allowed to all users... I had written a perl cgi script, and it wouldn't run from the web page, as it turns out because I had created it as root. Then chmod o+x your_script. Pascal Want to buy your Pack or Services from
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED -(permission related)
Thank you for the response, but this is really starting to get to me! What do I not have the hang of? Everyone acts like it's soo simple. But there's something else going on. Can someone explain why a cgi file WITH PERMISSIONS SET TO 755 ... would not run, but then would run IMMEDIATELY AFTER CHANGING OWNERSHIP FROM ROOT TO A USER? After the file would run, I changed ownership back to root and the file ***would no longer run***. Then, I changed it back to the user and the file ***would run***. Does anyone have an explanation? If not, that's cool. But please don't say Set the permisisons ... or Read about permissions. Please :) I'm getting to worked up. Lol. It's just that there's something here to understand that is escaping everyone somehow, and I want to understand it. If I'm totally missing something really simple, could someone explain it? whew ... thanks, mitch Anuerin G.Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED -(permission related) ndrake.com 01/08/02 08:32 AM Please respond to newbie On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:35:38 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But that's what is weird -- the permissions were set to 755. I just did a test. I ran the script, and it worked. Then I changed ownership to root, and it didn't work. I changed it back to mitch, and it worked. Before, when I had changed the ownership of the file with chown, I didn't stop to then modify the permissions. I just went to my windows machine, loaded the html page in the browser, and clicked on the link to the cgi file. And it worked. The only change I had made was ownership from root to the user account mitch. The file, btw, is in the home directory of mitch. So maybe a file in a user's home directory *must* have permissions to run from the owner of that directory. In other words, root can't give permission to run an executable from a user's home directory? mitch the *must* is not necessarily true. the permissions can be toggled according to the wishes of the owner (and the almighty root). the owner can set the permissions of any file he owns depending on the use. you can also remove the write permission of a file so prevent from overwriting it (chmod 555 [file] - the file is readable and executable but is write protected to all users). files without write permission for the current user is readable meaning it can be opened as 'read-only'. the user can also remove group and world permissions so only he can use the file ( chmod 700 file ). sound dizzying but the concept is really simple once you get the hang of it. -- Programming, an artform that fights back. = Anuerin G. Diaz Design Engineer Millennium Software, Incorporated 2305 B West Tower, Philippines Stocks Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Tel# 638-3070 loc. 72 Fax# 638-3079 = Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Shell Script
This brings up a question about permissions ... So a script (or any executable, such as a perl script written for cgi) cannot be run by anyone other than root, if it was created by root? I mean, root can't give permission for a root-owned script to be world executable, even if the administrator wanted to? While I can see how doing that would be a very bad idea, in terms of security, I'm just asking in order to learn more about linux file permissions. I had written a perl cgi script, and it wouldn't run from the web page, as it turns out because I had created it as root. mitch hi rich, the script is an _executable_. just create an icon in your desktop and point it to the script of your choice. make sure that you have the proper permissions though as some scripts are for administration (root and its equivalent) use only. ciao! -- Programming, an artform that fights back. = Anuerin G. Diaz Design Engineer Millennium Software, Incorporated 2305 B West Tower, Philippines Stocks Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Tel# 638-3070 loc. 72 Fax# 638-3079 = Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED
But that's what is weird -- the permissions were set to 755. I just did a test. I ran the script, and it worked. Then I changed ownership to root, and it didn't work. I changed it back to mitch, and it worked. Before, when I had changed the ownership of the file with chown, I didn't stop to then modify the permissions. I just went to my windows machine, loaded the html page in the browser, and clicked on the link to the cgi file. And it worked. The only change I had made was ownership from root to the user account mitch. The file, btw, is in the home directory of mitch. So maybe a file in a user's home directory *must* have permissions to run from the owner of that directory. In other words, root can't give permission to run an executable from a user's home directory? mitch Miark [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED ndrake.com 01/04/02 06:29 PM Please respond to newbie It's typical of the Linux filesystem, regardless of what the file is, or who it belongs to. It's not a problem that a script is owned by root, but in order for others to run it, the permission for others must be open. That is, a script owned by root can't be run by others if it's 700, but it can if it's 755. Let me know if that doesn't make sense. Miark - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED So is this a security measure or just a normal part of linux file permissions? Is it that no cgi script, anywhere, will run if it has root permissions or is it that it just wouldn't run because it was in a user's home directory? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [newbie] Shell Script
But can I, as root, give permission to run a file as world executable in a user's home directory? The reason I ask is I tried that and it -- the cgi file -- wouldn't work, until I changed the owner to the user of the home directory ... oh wait. I had changed the group, not the user. I see now. You have to change both. If the file is the group root, but the owner is the user mitch, it won't run because mitch isn't in the root group. So if the file is in the group root, then the user would also have to be the root group for the file to be executable? That makes sense. Duh! Is that right? mitch Scott Thurmond scott.thurmond@pfsfhTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] q.com cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [newbie] Shell Script newbie-owner@linux-ma ndrake.com 01/07/02 08:54 AM Please respond to newbie You (root) can give permission to any file you want. Lets, for example, say root wants to give the ID brian ownership of the file /tmp/tempfile.txt. chown id:group /file chown brian:brian /tmp/tempfile.txt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] Shell Script This brings up a question about permissions ... So a script (or any executable, such as a perl script written for cgi) cannot be run by anyone other than root, if it was created by root? I mean, root can't give permission for a root-owned script to be world executable, even if the administrator wanted to? While I can see how doing that would be a very bad idea, in terms of security, I'm just asking in order to learn more about linux file permissions. I had written a perl cgi script, and it wouldn't run from the web page, as it turns out because I had created it as root. mitch hi rich, the script is an _executable_. just create an icon in your desktop and point it to the script of your choice. make sure that you have the proper permissions though as some scripts are for administration (root and its equivalent) use only. ciao! -- Programming, an artform that fights back. = Anuerin G. Diaz Design Engineer Millennium Software, Incorporated 2305 B West Tower, Philippines Stocks Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Tel# 638-3070 loc. 72 Fax# 638-3079 = Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Shell Script
Right. I got all that. But the question is this: whatever the permissions might be, can root give permission -- and it work -- for a file to be world executable from within the public_html directory within a user's home directory? It seems like, sure, of course ... But it didn't work for me. I had a Perl file, with a cgi extension, in the cgi-bin of a user's home directory. And it would not run from a web browser. It just wouldn't. The permissions were 755. I checked them a million times. I set them with root. I set them with the user account (I am root and the user). Nothing would get the file to execute as long as it was in the root group. Chmod did nothing. Chown, however, fixed it by switching the file to the group of the user. (Yes, I had made a group just for the user.) It wasn't a matter of me not understanding chmod. I wish :). It was weird, which is why I'm trying to find out what was going on. Everyone seems to be saying, As long as it has 755 permssions, it WILL run. But, no, it wouldn't. So there's something else going on, which has to do with which *group* the file belonged to. Because as soon as I changed the group from root to mitch the file would run from a web browser. Anyone have an explanation? If not, I'm just glad the file runs, finally, and sometime later maybe I'll understand why it wouldn't run before -- even when I, as root, gave 755 permissions. mitch Randy Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: Re: [newbie] Shell Script ndrake.com 01/07/02 11:09 AM Please respond to newbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This brings up a question about permissions ... So a script (or any executable, such as a perl script written for cgi) cannot be run by anyone other than root, if it was created by root? I mean, root can't give permission for a root-owned script to be world executable, even if the administrator wanted to? While I can see how doing that would be a very bad idea, in terms of security, I'm just asking in order to learn more about linux file permissions. I had written a perl cgi script, and it wouldn't run from the web page, as it turns out because I had created it as root. In general, root can give permission to other to execute (or read, or write) a file. You should read more on this somewhere, but generally, every file has a set of permission bits, sometimes displayed like 700, 755, or 777 (and sometimes with another leading digit). Of these three digits, the first represents permissions for the owner of the file (which could be root or anybody else), the second gives permissions for a group which owns the file, and the third gives permissions for the world (everybody, or anybody who can log in to the system holding the files). The three digits are octal, and it is helpful to interpret them as the bits representing that octal number. (Like 7=111, 6=110, ... 0=000 (don't know why I did that backwards, it's more natural to start at 0. ;-) In the group of three bits, the first bit represents read permission, the second represents write permission, and the third represents execute permission. So, as an example, if you set the permissions on a file to 751, the owner of the file would have read, write, and execute permission, and the group that owns the file would have read and execute permissions, and the whole world would have read permissions. Read up on chmod and chown. Randy Kramer PS: When you get into CGI, especially on a TWiki, things can get a little more confusing. TWiki stores all revisions in RCS, and as presently set up, the RCS
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install?
Thanks, everyone, for the help so far. I'm still having problems though. I made a public_html directory in my home directory and entered the directory entry for it in commonhttpd.conf, where all other such entries are located. (commonhttpd.conf is included into httpd.conf with Include.) Now at least the cgi file is found when I run it -- I no longer get the file not found error. But now I get a 500 Internal Server error. Here are the error messages from the httpd error log from today: [Fri Jan 4 08:32:53 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directory: exec of /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.cgi failed [Fri Jan 4 08:32:53 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.51] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:15:43 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Directory index forbidden by rule: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/ [Fri Jan 4 09:16:01 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:16:28 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:18:06 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:22:53 2002] [warn] child process 9685 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:22:54 2002] [warn] child process 9686 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:22:54 2002] [warn] child process 9688 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:22:54 2002] [warn] child process 9692 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:23:11 2002] [alert] httpd: Could not determine the server's fully qualified domain name, using 130.164.62.79 for ServerName [Fri Jan 4 09:23:11 2002] [notice] Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.20 (Mandrake Linux/3mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6b configured -- resuming normal operations [Fri Jan 4 09:23:11 2002] [notice] suEXEC mechanism enabled (wrapper: /usr/sbin/suexec) [Fri Jan 4 09:23:51 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:33:06 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:37:06 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:38:56 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:39:37 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.pl [Fri Jan 4 09:50:53 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi mitch Keith Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] uthal.edu cc: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal 01/03/02 install? 07:41 PM Mitch, One possible problem you might be having is that /cgi-bin is mapped to a certain directory with ScriptAlias. Suppose you wanted the user wilson to run cgi scripts in a directory called cgi-bin through the URL .../~wilson/cgi-bin, then you need to have the Directory Directive with the absolute path to that directory Directory /home/wilson/public_html/cgi-bin AddHandler cgi-script cgi Options +ExecCGI /Directory Then make sure that /home/wilson/public_html/cgi-bin has world execute permission and the scripts in that directory have world execute permission. If you still have problems, let me know. Keith Lynn Systems Administrator School of Computer and Information Sciences University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36608 Phone: (334) 460-6390 Fax: (334) 460-7274 Alternate E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~lynn/ On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So far it's still not working. I get a file not found error. Is www/cis/cgi-bin relative to what I set as DocumentRoot? In otherwords, do I need to include the full path to the cgi bin or just the part after documentroot?
Re: Re[2]: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install?
Yes, I did chmod 755 test.cgi Here's are the permissions, as seen from my FTP program: drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Jan 4 16:15 public_html drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 4 15:39 cgi-bin -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 96 Jan 4 15:17 index.html -rwxr-xr-x 1 mitchroot 173 Jan 4 15:38 test.cgi The user account is mitch. Does it matter that mitch owns only the cgi file itself? mitch Onur Kucuk okucuk@yahooTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .comcc: Subject: Re[2]: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from 01/04/02 normal install? 10:18 AM Please respond to Onur Kucuk Could not follow the thread, but, are your scripts executable ? world executable I mean, Onur Kucuk _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install?
Here is the cgi script: #! usr/bin/perl use CGI; $query = new CGI; print $query-header; print htmlheadtitleTest/title/head\n; print bodyThe test was successful./body/html; I also used this script before, but it didn't work either, same error: #! usr/bin/perl printcontent-type: text/html\n\n; print htmlheadtitleTest/title/head\n; print bodyThe test was successful./body/html; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? 01/04/02 10:11 AM Please respond to newbie Thanks, everyone, for the help so far. I'm still having problems though. I made a public_html directory in my home directory and entered the directory entry for it in commonhttpd.conf, where all other such entries are located. (commonhttpd.conf is included into httpd.conf with Include.) Now at least the cgi file is found when I run it -- I no longer get the file not found error. But now I get a 500 Internal Server error. Here are the error messages from the httpd error log from today: [Fri Jan 4 08:32:53 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directory: exec of /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.cgi failed [Fri Jan 4 08:32:53 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.51] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:15:43 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Directory index forbidden by rule: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/ [Fri Jan 4 09:16:01 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:16:28 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:18:06 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:22:53 2002] [warn] child process 9685 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:22:54 2002] [warn] child process 9686 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:22:54 2002] [warn] child process 9688 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:22:54 2002] [warn] child process 9692 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:23:11 2002] [alert] httpd: Could not determine the server's fully qualified domain name, using 130.164.62.79 for ServerName [Fri Jan 4 09:23:11 2002] [notice] Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.20 (Mandrake Linux/3mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6b configured -- resuming normal operations [Fri Jan 4 09:23:11 2002] [notice] suEXEC mechanism enabled (wrapper: /usr/sbin/suexec) [Fri Jan 4 09:23:51 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:33:06 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:37:06 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:38:56 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:39:37 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.pl [Fri Jan 4 09:50:53 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi mitch Keith Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] uthal.edu cc: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal 01/03/02 install? 07:41 PM
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install?
Yep. I did three tests. First I checked the syntax of test.cgi. It was fine. Then I ran test.cgi and test.pl from the command line. Here is what I saw on my screen: [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl -c test.cgi test.cgi syntax OK [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.cgi Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.pl Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html mitch Keith Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] u cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal newbie-owner@linux-mainstall? ndrake.com 01/04/02 11:21 AM Please respond to newbie Mitch, Are you able to execute your scripts on the command line? Keith Lynn Systems Administrator School of Computer and Information Sciences University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36608 Phone: (334) 460-6390 Fax: (334) 460-7274 Alternate E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~lynn/ On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the cgi script: #! usr/bin/perl use CGI; $query = new CGI; print $query-header; print htmlheadtitleTest/title/head\n; print bodyThe test was successful./body/html; I also used this script before, but it didn't work either, same error: #! usr/bin/perl printcontent-type: text/html\n\n; print htmlheadtitleTest/title/head\n; print bodyThe test was successful./body/html; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? 01/04/02 10:11 AM Please respond to newbie Thanks, everyone, for the help so far. I'm still having problems though. I made a public_html directory in my home directory and entered the directory entry for it in commonhttpd.conf, where all other such entries are located. (commonhttpd.conf is included into httpd.conf with Include.) Now at least the cgi file is found when I run it -- I no longer get the file not found error. But now I get a 500 Internal Server error. Here are the error messages from the httpd error log from today: [Fri Jan 4 08:32:53 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directory: exec of /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.cgi failed [Fri Jan 4 08:32:53 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.51] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:15:43 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Directory index forbidden by rule: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/ [Fri Jan 4 09:16:01 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:16:28 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:18:06 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.79] Premature end of script headers: /home/mitch/public_html/cgi-bin/test.cgi [Fri Jan 4 09:22:53 2002] [warn] child process 9685 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:22:54 2002] [warn] child process 9686 still did not exit, sending a SIGTERM [Fri Jan 4 09:22:54 2002] [warn] child process 9688 still did not exit,
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install?
Oops. I made a mistake. Not sure if it matters ... but below was the actual output on my screen from running the scripts from the command line. Last email I had inadvertly added an extra line of space between the command line and the start of the output. [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl -c test.cgi test.cgi syntax OK [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.cgi Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.pl Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? 01/04/02 12:29 PM Please respond to newbie Yep. I did three tests. First I checked the syntax of test.cgi. It was fine. Then I ran test.cgi and test.pl from the command line. Here is what I saw on my screen: [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl -c test.cgi test.cgi syntax OK [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.cgi Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.pl Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html mitch Keith Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] u cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal newbie-owner@linux-mainstall? ndrake.com 01/04/02 11:21 AM Please respond to newbie Mitch, Are you able to execute your scripts on the command line? Keith Lynn Systems Administrator School of Computer and Information Sciences University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36608 Phone: (334) 460-6390 Fax: (334) 460-7274 Alternate E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~lynn/ On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the cgi script: #! usr/bin/perl use CGI; $query = new CGI; print $query-header; print htmlheadtitleTest/title/head\n; print bodyThe test was successful./body/html; I also used this script before, but it didn't work either, same error: #! usr/bin/perl printcontent-type: text/html\n\n; print htmlheadtitleTest/title/head\n; print bodyThe test was successful./body/html; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? 01/04/02 10:11 AM Please respond to newbie Thanks, everyone, for the help so far. I'm still having problems though. I made a public_html directory in my home directory and entered the directory entry for it in commonhttpd.conf, where all other such entries are located. (commonhttpd.conf is included into httpd.conf with Include.) Now at least the cgi file is found when I run it -- I no longer get the file not found error. But now I get a 500 Internal Server error. Here are the error messages from the httpd error log from today: [Fri Jan 4 08:32:53 2002] [error] (2)No such file or directory: exec of /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.cgi failed [Fri Jan 4 08:32:53 2002] [error] [client 130.164.62.51]
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED
The problem was the group permissions: the cgi-bin and files were owned by the root group. I changed ownership to the mitch group, and now my cgi scripts run from a link in a web page when called with a browser. I had created the cgi-bin as root orginally, because I thought that only the admin could do it. Now I see that's not true, since the commonhttpd.conf allows the owner of a public_html directory to create their own cgi-bin. Maybe there shouldn't be a mitch group? Anyway, I'm just glad it works. Thanks for the help everyone! I learned a lot about some subjects that were just vauge to me before, ie, apache configuration files and commands. The correct permissions were already set for cgi in the commonhttpd.conf, which gets included into httpd.conf; so I didn't need to change anything in there. I changed it all back to default settings. mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? 01/04/02 12:35 PM Please respond to newbie Oops. I made a mistake. Not sure if it matters ... but below was the actual output on my screen from running the scripts from the command line. Last email I had inadvertly added an extra line of space between the command line and the start of the output. [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl -c test.cgi test.cgi syntax OK [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.cgi Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.pl Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? 01/04/02 12:29 PM Please respond to newbie Yep. I did three tests. First I checked the syntax of test.cgi. It was fine. Then I ran test.cgi and test.pl from the command line. Here is what I saw on my screen: [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl -c test.cgi test.cgi syntax OK [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.cgi Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.pl Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html mitch Keith Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] u cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal newbie-owner@linux-mainstall? ndrake.com 01/04/02 11:21 AM Please respond to newbie Mitch, Are you able to execute your scripts on the command line? Keith Lynn Systems Administrator School of Computer and Information Sciences University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36608 Phone: (334) 460-6390 Fax: (334) 460-7274 Alternate E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~lynn/ On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the cgi script: #! usr/bin/perl use CGI; $query = new CGI; print $query-header; print htmlheadtitleTest/title/head\n; print bodyThe test was successful./body/html; I also used this script before, but it
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED
Phew, tell me about it :). Made me learn something, though. Heh. So is this a security measure or just a normal part of linux file permissions? Is it that no cgi script, anywhere, will run if it has root permissions or is it that it just wouldn't run because it was in a user's home directory? mitch Miark miark@acsol.To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] net cc: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED 01/04/02 03:39 PM Phew! Congrats! I can think of many times when apache couldn't run a script because I (inadvertently) created it as root. Fickle things, these servers. Miark - Original Message - From: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up ... FIXED The problem was the group permissions: the cgi-bin and files were owned by the root group. I changed ownership to the mitch group, and now my cgi scripts run from a link in a web page when called with a browser. I had created the cgi-bin as root orginally, because I thought that only the admin could do it. Now I see that's not true, since the commonhttpd.conf allows the owner of a public_html directory to create their own cgi-bin. Maybe there shouldn't be a mitch group? Anyway, I'm just glad it works. Thanks for the help everyone! I learned a lot about some subjects that were just vauge to me before, ie, apache configuration files and commands. The correct permissions were already set for cgi in the commonhttpd.conf, which gets included into httpd.conf; so I didn't need to change anything in there. I changed it all back to default settings. mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? 01/04/02 12:35 PM Please respond to newbie Oops. I made a mistake. Not sure if it matters ... but below was the actual output on my screen from running the scripts from the command line. Last email I had inadvertly added an extra line of space between the command line and the start of the output. [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl -c test.cgi test.cgi syntax OK [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.cgi Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.pl Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? 01/04/02 12:29 PM Please respond to newbie Yep. I did three tests. First I checked the syntax of test.cgi. It was fine. Then I ran test.cgi and test.pl from the command line. Here is what I saw on my screen: [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl -c test.cgi test.cgi syntax OK [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.cgi Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html [mitch@tcob cgi-bin]# perl test.pl Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 htmlheadtitleTest/title/head bodyThe test was successful./body/html mitch Keith Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] u cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal newbie-owner@linux-mainstall?
[newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install?
I have a server on an intranet. Is CGI already set up? If so, where do I put my CGIs for new users? I tried to add a cgi-bin to a user's home directory, for myself, because I was worried about running CGIs as root, if that would even happen. So, I made a cgi-bin and set the permissions, but I get a You don't have permission error message. The permissions were set to 755, so everyone could read and execute but only I could write. I checked this over and over. Is there some reason that I can't *yet* run CGIs other than file permissions? I tried FTPing the files as ascii and I tried just writing them on the linux machine. I've also used stock, very easy intro scripts that just return Hello world to the browser. And I've successfully used CGI on my personal machine hosted by professionals. It appears to me -- I installed Mandrake myself -- that CGI isn't set up correctly for a user account. How do I do that? Could someone either explain or point me to some place where I can read how to set up CGI for users on Mandrake Linux running Apache? Everthing I find is either just reference material -- which doesn't help if you're a newbie -- or how to write CGIs. mitch Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install?
So far it's still not working. I get a file not found error. Is www/cis/cgi-bin relative to what I set as DocumentRoot? In otherwords, do I need to include the full path to the cgi bin or just the part after documentroot? Or does documentroot even have anything to with this? I set documentroot to /home/mitch/www/htdocs. If the cgi bin is in /home/mitch/www/cgi-bin, what do I do in Directory? Because I have a directory structure like: /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.html /home/mitch/www/cgi-bin/myscript.cgi Here's what I have in my html file calling the cgi: form method=post action=../cgi-bin/myscript.cgi I thought maybe trying to go up one directory ../ to get into the cgi-bin might be causing a problem, because documentroot was /home/mitch/www/htdocs. I don't know, but it just seemed to be making things not-so simple and straightforward. So I changed it to: /home/mitch/www/htdocs/myscript.html /home/mitch/www/htdocs/cgi-bin/myscript.cgi Then I redid the permissions and the html file to say action =cgi-bin/myscript.cgi and again as /cgi-bin/myscript.cgi but neither worked. I still get the file not found error. Would I get a file not found error because of an apache configuration problem? mitch Keith Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] uthal.edu cc: Subject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal 01/03/02 install? 03:49 PM Hi Mitch, In order to allow cgi scripts to run, you need to give them permission in your httpd.conf file. Suppose you want to have scripts ending in .cgi in the directory /www/cis/cgi-bin to be interpreted as scripts. Then you would include the following in your httpd.conf file. Directory /www/cis/cgi-bin AddHandler cgi-script cgi Options +ExecCGI /Directory Then make sure that permissions are set (at least world execute on directories and scripts), and you should be able to run scripts. If you need any other help, let me know. Keith Lynn Systems Administrator School of Computer and Information Sciences University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36608 Phone: (334) 460-6390 Fax: (334) 460-7274 Alternate E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~lynn/ On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a server on an intranet. Is CGI already set up? If so, where do I put my CGIs for new users? I tried to add a cgi-bin to a user's home directory, for myself, because I was worried about running CGIs as root, if that would even happen. So, I made a cgi-bin and set the permissions, but I get a You don't have permission error message. The permissions were set to 755, so everyone could read and execute but only I could write. I checked this over and over. Is there some reason that I can't *yet* run CGIs other than file permissions? I tried FTPing the files as ascii and I tried just writing them on the linux machine. I've also used stock, very easy intro scripts that just return Hello world to the browser. And I've successfully used CGI on my personal machine hosted by professionals. It appears to me -- I installed Mandrake myself -- that CGI isn't set up correctly for a user account. How do I do that? Could someone either explain or point me to some place where I can read how to set up CGI for users on Mandrake Linux running Apache? Everthing I find is either just reference material -- which doesn't help if you're a newbie -- or how to write CGIs. mitch Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install?
Yes but I'm not sure if I did it correctly. Another person here, Keith, instructed my how to do so, but I have a question about that. He said to type in the following in httpd.conf. I typed it there and also in commonhttpd.conf. My script still won't run, because of a file not found error. Directory /www/cis/cgi-bin AddHandler cgi-script cgi Options +ExecCGI /Directory Question: is /www/cis/cgi-bin as absolute or relative path? Is it relative to documentroot? mitch Miark [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: Re: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal ndrake.com install? 01/03/02 03:50 PM Please respond to newbie Mitch, Did you tell Apache (i.e. in the configuration files) which directory would function as the cgi directory? Miark - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:39 PM Subject: [newbie] Is CGI set up for user accounts from normal install? I have a server on an intranet. Is CGI already set up? If so, where do I put my CGIs for new users? I tried to add a cgi-bin to a user's home directory, for myself, because I was worried about running CGIs as root, if that would even happen. So, I made a cgi-bin and set the permissions, but I get a You don't have permission error message. The permissions were set to 755, so everyone could read and execute but only I could write. I checked this over and over. Is there some reason that I can't *yet* run CGIs other than file permissions? I tried FTPing the files as ascii and I tried just writing them on the linux machine. I've also used stock, very easy intro scripts that just return Hello world to the browser. And I've successfully used CGI on my personal machine hosted by professionals. It appears to me -- I installed Mandrake myself -- that CGI isn't set up correctly for a user account. How do I do that? Could someone either explain or point me to some place where I can read how to set up CGI for users on Mandrake Linux running Apache? Everthing I find is either just reference material -- which doesn't help if you're a newbie -- or how to write CGIs. mitch Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Mitch Wilson/AUS/NIC is out of the office.
I will be out of the office starting 12/17/2001 and will not return until 12/21/2001. I will respond to your message when I return. I am on vacation from Dec 17 - 21, the week before Xmas. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Windows humor flash movie
http://www.etplanet.net/downloads/game/WindowsRG.swf mitch Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Help with Telnet
I have a similar problem. Sorry I don't the answer for you, but if I find the answer to my problem I'll let you know. I have two computers, one is running linux as a server and the other is running win 98. I want to telnet from win 98 to my linux server, but I can't. It just says host refused connection. I don't have a firewall set up, and I do have a user account set up for myself on the linux machine. So I don't know why it doesn't work. Is the same problem you're having? mitch cvine140402@netscape. net (Carl Vine) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: [newbie] Help with Telnet ndrake.com 10/25/01 12:48 AM Please respond to newbie Hi Folks, I have a Dell 2400 system with a couple of NICs installed (am also experiencing the same issue with a laptop w. 2 NICs). Basically the problem is that I cannot telnet to any of my local hosts. I can ping them no problem but when it comes to telnetting, all I get is the login prompt, enter my username and nothing more. Eventually a message comes back saying the remote host closed the connection. In either case I have used netconf and setup the default route, the DNS etc... EG: machine ip, 10.10.10.100 gateway ip, 10.10.10.1 DNS (int) , 10.10.10.1 host network, 203.55.65.xxx Ive disabled the 2nd interface, still no luck. If anyone can share their troubleshooting tips I would appreciate it Cheers __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] How do I release my IP number?
Thanks. That didn't do that trick, but it was very helpful to know anyway. I found out about network stop, too, because you your lead :). Dont you just love newbs! But that didn't do the trick. I wanted to release my ip number so I would get a new one via dhcp. Sorry I that wasn't clear in my first post. The problem was that the ip number I had was new and wasn't in synch with my computer's listing in the ip table(s) on the network. And I can't do anything to get those updated, so I was trying to release my ip number, in the hopes the when I got a new one via dhcp that the new one would be added to the ip table(s). So restarting the network didn't do anything in that regard, because I just got the same ip number back. What I did, to resolve this, was to just type in the ip number that was in the ip table(s), that I could get by typing host tcob, the name of my server. It gave me the ip number from the ip table(s) -- which wasn't the one actually current and assigned to me. So I just entered it manually with netconf. I really didn't want to do this, but I had to. Is there anything wrong with manually adding the ip assigned to you with dhcp on a company intranet? mitch Paul Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: Re: [newbie] How do I release my IP number? ndrake.com 10/20/01 06:46 PM Please respond to newbie On Friday, Oct 19, 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do I release my IP number, so I can have a new one assigned from my intranet dns? /etc/rc.d/init.d/network restart (as root) should do the trick. -- Paul Cox paul at coxcentral dot com Kernel: 2.4.8-26mdk - Uptime: 3 days 19 hours 49 minutes. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] How do I release my IP number?
Replying to myself ... lol. I think I found the answer to my own question: how do I release my IP number. So I thought I'd share it and see how it if anyone call tem if it will work. The problem was an obsolete ip address for my personal server assigned via dhcp on my company's intranet. I had a new ip address assigned, but the rest of the network didn't know it. So my site wouldn't come up using my hostname, although it would come up with the new ip number. So I had to get the rest of the intranet to update their ip table(s) to associate my new ip number with my hostname. Scanning a FAQ, I found this: Long leases can be disadvantageous in cases where you need to change a configuration parameter or withdraw an address from use. The length of the lease can mean the difference between having to go to every affected client and rebooting it, or merely waiting a certain amount of time for the leases to be renewed. (Note: one workaround is to fool with the client computer's clock). So it seems that if I change my server's clock to a a future time, maybe advance a year, that my ip lease will run out and I'll get a new and updated number that will show up in the intranet's ip tables(s)? I'm assuming that my original problem was due to having a lease on an old ip number that was still in effect. mitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] newbie-owner@linux-macc: ndrake.com Subject: Re: [newbie] How do I release my IP number? 10/22/01 09:56 AM Please respond to newbie Thanks. That didn't do that trick, but it was very helpful to know anyway. I found out about network stop, too, because you your lead :). Dont you just love newbs! But that didn't do the trick. I wanted to release my ip number so I would get a new one via dhcp. Sorry I that wasn't clear in my first post. The problem was that the ip number I had was new and wasn't in synch with my computer's listing in the ip table(s) on the network. And I can't do anything to get those updated, so I was trying to release my ip number, in the hopes the when I got a new one via dhcp that the new one would be added to the ip table(s). So restarting the network didn't do anything in that regard, because I just got the same ip number back. What I did, to resolve this, was to just type in the ip number that was in the ip table(s), that I could get by typing host tcob, the name of my server. It gave me the ip number from the ip table(s) -- which wasn't the one actually current and assigned to me. So I just entered it manually with netconf. I really didn't want to do this, but I had to. Is there anything wrong with manually adding the ip assigned to you with dhcp on a company intranet? mitch Paul Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: Re: [newbie] How do I release my IP number? ndrake.com 10/20/01 06:46 PM Please respond to newbie On Friday, Oct 19, 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do I release my IP number, so I can have a new one assigned from my intranet dns? /etc/rc.d/init.d/network restart (as root) should do the trick. -- Paul Cox paul at coxcentral dot com Kernel: 2.4.8-26mdk - Uptime: 3 days 19 hours 49 minutes. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to
RE: [newbie] How do I release my IP number?
Wow. Thanks for all your help. The MAC address -- ah, ok. So I would have to replace the network card like you said. Someone else mentioned that earlier, too. Now it makes sense. So if I had an extra network card, switching out network cards would work, but only once since both network cards would keep their ip addresses for the terms of the leases. Now that I understand, this means that after the term of the lease my ip address will be up for grabs and there's a chance that I could get it or someone else could it back, since the ip address that is on stored in the ip table(s) is not the one that is actually associated with the mac address in my network card. When it's lease runs out, the dhcp server will see that it's not being used and might give it to someone else. Actually, unless there's something else to all this, I will almost certainly lose it, because my network card isn't using dhcp anymore. So how would it get renewed? It wouldn't, right? It will remain on my system, since I entered it manually, but the dhcp server wouldn't renew it, because my network card isn't using dhcp anymore. So if it *happened* to be reassigned to someone else, there would be a conflict. If wasn't reassigned, by chance, my connection would continue to work as long as that ip was never assigned. But someday it would be, so it would just be a matter of time until my connection would no longer work, because it would never be renewed via dhcp, since my network card isn't using dhcp now. Sighs... so I'd have to check back periodically, by using host ip number to see if I still have the lease. When I don't, then I would need to turned dhcp back on my network card. Does that sound right, or is there an easier way? Maybe I should try and swap out a network card from another computer laying around, and get that one going with dhcp, and then just leave everything alone? mitch Jose M. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] om cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [newbie] How do I release my IP number? newbie-owner@linux-ma ndrake.com 10/22/01 04:28 PM Please respond to opjose |-Original Message- |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:49 PM |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Subject: RE: [newbie] How do I release my IP number? | | | |Changing the name didn't get the NT server to give me a new |lease: that was the original problem. I had an ip number from -- SNIP --- |intranet. Strange, huh? DCHP gave me a new number that wouldn't work. | Yeah it sounds like it was tied to the MAC address instead of either Netbios naming or the DHCP lease request itself. |The only I'm worried about now is if my lease expires, will |the ip address I'm using be given away to someone else some |day? If I understood you, you said that as long as that ip is |active within a (default) period of 5 days, I'll be ok, even |though I now no longer have my network card set up to get an |ip via dhcp. | There is ALWAYS a chancee that you'll loose the IP, especially if there is a shortage of addresses available. However even after 5 days, your IP is thrown to the bottom of the pool (heh, analogy not intended). Other available IP's are distributed first on a time bases. That is, the leases that expired long ago get first priority for re-allocation. So it's quite possible for your system to be disconnected for months, and get it's old IP back upon rejoining the network
RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is the rep ly Iposted to them.)
Thanks :) mitch Franki [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] au cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is newbie-owner@linux-mathe rep ly I posted to them.) ndrake.com 10/19/01 10:54 AM Please respond to frankieh Actually, I was pretty sure it was a joke (I sorta figured that it had to be to be that bad...), but newbies or windows users that read it may not know one way or the other.. To be honest, its not the sort of humour that we need, since only people that know linux to some degree would know its a joke. And I read all 470 posts under it, and decided if someone didn't write something specific about it, then newbies would possibly believe it, and that all linux enthusiasts were a back of self elitist schmucks... (Thats based on 30 posts after the article where a buch of them aggressively argue about the technical definition of a firewall/router and how linux can and can't be a router...) It had nothing to do with the article, and very little to do with linux in general, and like I said, made us sound like a bunch of fanatics,,, So I posted that in the hope that it might enlighten at least one newbie rgds Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2001 10:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is the rep ly I posted to them.) Actually, I'm not sure if Frank is taking it seriously or just adding some real facts so the newbs (like myself) know the truths. mitch Adrian Lynch adrian.l@thoughtbubbTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], Newbie le.net (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is ndrake.com the rep ly I posted to them.) 10/18/01 08:41 AM Please respond to newbie I can't believe you lot take this so seriously. I'm very new to Linux yet I found it funny, and there was probably more jokes in it than I'll ever realise. No doubt they are all pating themselves on the back at such an out cry by yourselves. This is exactly what they were hoping for I think!! Ade -Original Message- From: Franki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 17 October 2001 22:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is the reply I posted to them.) lol, I titled this: This guy is on Drugs or Works for Microsoft here is what I posted, anyone correct me if anything I said was incorrect. = Hi, First of all, the guys name was Linus not linux. Second: M$ Office, Outlook and IE are Microsoft software, THEY choose not to supply them for linux because they want people to use windows not linux. Third: There is more then one linux app that will open and save in M$ office file formats, anyone with half a brain can work out how to use them as its pretty much a standard menu system. Try Star Office and Openoffice. Forth:, Mozilla is almost word for word standards compliant, IE is not. (although ie6 is close) so you lied. Fifth: You don't need a Pentium with 32MB
[newbie] How do I release my IP number?
How do I release my IP number, so I can have a new one assigned from my intranet dns? Mitch Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is the rep ly Iposted to them.)
I agree. I mean *cough* ... look at the rest of the site. Go to the home page. Do some *cough* research about the site before jumping to conclusions that _the author_ didn't know her/his stuff. It's obviously satire. And very good satire. But I did like Franki's response. Seriously: I'm a newbie and got a lot of good info :). --mitch Adrian Lynch adrian.l@thoughtbubbTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], Newbie le.net (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is ndrake.com the rep ly I posted to them.) 10/18/01 08:41 AM Please respond to newbie I can't believe you lot take this so seriously. I'm very new to Linux yet I found it funny, and there was probably more jokes in it than I'll ever realise. No doubt they are all pating themselves on the back at such an out cry by yourselves. This is exactly what they were hoping for I think!! Ade -Original Message- From: Franki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 17 October 2001 22:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is the reply I posted to them.) lol, I titled this: This guy is on Drugs or Works for Microsoft here is what I posted, anyone correct me if anything I said was incorrect. = Hi, First of all, the guys name was Linus not linux. Second: M$ Office, Outlook and IE are Microsoft software, THEY choose not to supply them for linux because they want people to use windows not linux. Third: There is more then one linux app that will open and save in M$ office file formats, anyone with half a brain can work out how to use them as its pretty much a standard menu system. Try Star Office and Openoffice. Forth:, Mozilla is almost word for word standards compliant, IE is not. (although ie6 is close) so you lied. Fifth: You don't need a Pentium with 32MB ram to run linux, you can do it on a 386 with 8MB of ram. and boot it from a floppy (Trinix and others)you just need 32mb and a pentium to run Mandrake linux, since they rightly assume that people would rather have an OS that is optimised for the system they have, rather then one that is optimised for old hardware, you want to run linux on a 486, get Peanut or possibly Redhat. Also, try loading win2000 or XP on your 486. the versions of linux that were out when 95 came out, ran on 486's just fine, and the fact that some current versions can still run on it says alot, none of M$ recent versions will run on a 486 at all. Sixth: RedHat, Caldera and others are not past names for linux distro's they are Current other distro's. People chose the one they want. which had you read up on, you wouldn't have tried to use Mandrake on a 486. Seventh: Linux doesn't have virus software? thats probably because its nearly impossible to infect a properly linux box with a virus because of users,, you need root or admin access to do that. Windows XP home, like win98,98,98SE and ME make everyone root, so they are affected by virus's Also there are alot of linux virus scanners, like Trend Filescan, the thing is that they all search for windows virus's because there are none on linux that are a threat to anyone. Eighth: Linux doesn't need firewalls like Zone Alarm because the abiltiy is built into the OS, read ipchains and iptables, and Mandrake 8.1 has two firewalls built into it. InteractiveBastille does far more then most just by asking you a bunch of questions from a nice GUI interface. Ninth:
RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is the rep ly Iposted to them.)
Actually, I'm not sure if Frank is taking it seriously or just adding some real facts so the newbs (like myself) know the truths. mitch Adrian Lynch adrian.l@thoughtbubbTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED], Newbie le.net (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is ndrake.com the rep ly I posted to them.) 10/18/01 08:41 AM Please respond to newbie I can't believe you lot take this so seriously. I'm very new to Linux yet I found it funny, and there was probably more jokes in it than I'll ever realise. No doubt they are all pating themselves on the back at such an out cry by yourselves. This is exactly what they were hoping for I think!! Ade -Original Message- From: Franki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 17 October 2001 22:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [newbie] Worst factual review of linux ever ( This is the reply I posted to them.) lol, I titled this: This guy is on Drugs or Works for Microsoft here is what I posted, anyone correct me if anything I said was incorrect. = Hi, First of all, the guys name was Linus not linux. Second: M$ Office, Outlook and IE are Microsoft software, THEY choose not to supply them for linux because they want people to use windows not linux. Third: There is more then one linux app that will open and save in M$ office file formats, anyone with half a brain can work out how to use them as its pretty much a standard menu system. Try Star Office and Openoffice. Forth:, Mozilla is almost word for word standards compliant, IE is not. (although ie6 is close) so you lied. Fifth: You don't need a Pentium with 32MB ram to run linux, you can do it on a 386 with 8MB of ram. and boot it from a floppy (Trinix and others)you just need 32mb and a pentium to run Mandrake linux, since they rightly assume that people would rather have an OS that is optimised for the system they have, rather then one that is optimised for old hardware, you want to run linux on a 486, get Peanut or possibly Redhat. Also, try loading win2000 or XP on your 486. the versions of linux that were out when 95 came out, ran on 486's just fine, and the fact that some current versions can still run on it says alot, none of M$ recent versions will run on a 486 at all. Sixth: RedHat, Caldera and others are not past names for linux distro's they are Current other distro's. People chose the one they want. which had you read up on, you wouldn't have tried to use Mandrake on a 486. Seventh: Linux doesn't have virus software? thats probably because its nearly impossible to infect a properly linux box with a virus because of users,, you need root or admin access to do that. Windows XP home, like win98,98,98SE and ME make everyone root, so they are affected by virus's Also there are alot of linux virus scanners, like Trend Filescan, the thing is that they all search for windows virus's because there are none on linux that are a threat to anyone. Eighth: Linux doesn't need firewalls like Zone Alarm because the abiltiy is built into the OS, read ipchains and iptables, and Mandrake 8.1 has two firewalls built into it. InteractiveBastille does far more then most just by asking you a bunch of questions from a nice GUI interface. Ninth: Software, Mandrake linux has server software that it would cost over 2000AUD to achieve with Microsoft(tm) software, and you wouldn't have been effected by Code Red or Nimda if you weren't running M$
[newbie] Flashing red .DCOPserver_tc
My server is working fine, but I found some flashing red lines when I typed ls -a in my terminal window. I had read that using -a shows you hidden files, so I did it just to see what happeded. I was very interested to see .DCOPserver_janedoe; those of you helped with my hostname problem might be interested too. They refer to old hostnames that I had experimented with when setting up my web server. And they're flashing red!!! :). Just wondering if I need to do anything about these flashing lines: .DCOPserver_janedoe .DCOPserver_tc DCOPserver_tc.company.com The new name is also listed with .DCOPserver_tcob and it's not flashing. I assume that the flashing lines means that I need to somehow get rid of references to old, unused hostnames. Mitch Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] deluxepaintish programs, AOCP, anyone?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/killustrator I found this link to a group who discusses a program called killustrator. Maybe you can use that, or they can offer suggestions. mitch Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: newbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: newbie-owner@linux-maSubject: Re: [newbie] deluxepaintish programs, AOCP, anyone? ndrake.com 10/18/01 07:46 PM Please respond to newbie In reply to Jose M. Sanchez's words, written Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:56:03 -0400 Indeed. What would a winders program have that Gimp can't offer, in graphics? Well, Corel has their Corel suite ported to Linux too, if that's what you want... Paul Could you elaborate? How is it that it's not what you are looking for? What does it not do which programs such as DeluxePaint do? -JMS |-Original Message- |Thanks to all who replied. I looked at the Gimp first, but |it's not really what I'm looking for. It looks like those |types of programs died with 2D games and the demo scenes. Oh -- Imagination is the weapon in the war against reality http://nlpagan.net - Registered Linux User 174403 Linux Mandrake 8.0 - Sylpheed 0.6.3 Open Source, Open Minds. Linux. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
