From flarg at flarg.org  Thu May  1 08:04:22 2003
From: flarg at flarg.org (Stefan Lasiewski)
Date: 01 May 2003 08:04:22 -0700
Subject: [buug] Jermey Allison from Samba at Lawrence Berkeley Lab o
In-Reply-To: <20030501053202.17127.65481.Mailman@weak.org>
References: <20030501053202.17127.65481.Mailman@weak.org>
Message-ID: <1051801462.2975.3.camel@flarg.flarg.org>

Eek! Yes, you are correct. The meeting is on Tuesday, not Monday.

Darn facts...

-= Stefan

> Message: 20
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:27:50 -0700
> From: Dave Barry <dave at mikamyla.com>
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] Jermey Allison from Samba at Lawrence Berkeley Lab on Monday
> 
> Quothe Stefan Lasiewski <flarg at flarg.org>, on Wed, Apr 30, 2003:
> > For those that are interested, Jeremy Allison from the Samba project is
> > speaking at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab LUG this next Monday, May 6 at Noon.
> 
> May 6 is Tuesday, just to be clear.




From wfhoney at pacbell.net  Thu May  1 14:02:03 2003
From: wfhoney at pacbell.net (Bill Honeycutt)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 14:02:03 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
Message-ID: <3EB18B4B.1050208@pacbell.net>

Hi,

Most of the hits against our websites from domestic users (i.e. browsers 
located in the US of A).

Is it possible to differentiate users who are coming to us from "across 
the pond"?

Although this isn't specifically a *NIX question, I thought someone 
might have insight into the issue.

Thanks in advance!!!

Bill



From atporter at primate.net  Thu May  1 14:11:04 2003
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 14:11:04 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <3EB18B4B.1050208@pacbell.net>
References: <3EB18B4B.1050208@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <20030501211104.GR12607@primate.net>

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0700, Bill Honeycutt wrote:
 
> Is it possible to differentiate users who are coming to us from "across 
> the pond"?

	With varying degrees of accuracy, yes. Are you wanting to do this
in realtime or just for log processing? 


From alex at myzona.net  Thu May  1 14:13:30 2003
From: alex at myzona.net (Aleksandr Melentiev)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 14:13:30 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
References: <3EB18B4B.1050208@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <000901c31026$842450c0$0300a8c0@Romulus>

Hi,

I am not sure what is the correct way to accomplish such a task, but I can
give you some insight on how others differentiate users to explicitly deny
access.
For example, in Russia exists a list of all the russian IP zones, if the
user connects and his IP doesnt match the list, he gets denied. This way
russian companies try to avoid the network traffic from other countries,
because its expensive over there. Such a list is somewhat 50k in size. I
dont know if something similar can be done in the U.S.

Regards,
Alex

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Honeycutt" <wfhoney at pacbell.net>
To: "buug" <buug at weak.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:02 PM
Subject: [buug] Goin' International


> Hi,
>
> Most of the hits against our websites from domestic users (i.e. browsers
> located in the US of A).
>
> Is it possible to differentiate users who are coming to us from "across
> the pond"?
>
> Although this isn't specifically a *NIX question, I thought someone
> might have insight into the issue.
>
> Thanks in advance!!!
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
>



From wfhoney at pacbell.net  Thu May  1 14:19:43 2003
From: wfhoney at pacbell.net (Bill Honeycutt)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 14:19:43 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <20030501211104.GR12607@primate.net>
References: <3EB18B4B.1050208@pacbell.net> <20030501211104.GR12607@primate.net>
Message-ID: <3EB18F6F.2000607@pacbell.net>

Aaron T Porter wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0700, Bill Honeycutt wrote:
>  
> 
>>Is it possible to differentiate users who are coming to us from "across 
>>the pond"?
> 
> 
> 	With varying degrees of accuracy, yes. Are you wanting to do this
> in realtime or just for log processing? 

Unfortunately, realtime :-/





From atporter at primate.net  Thu May  1 14:20:38 2003
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 14:20:38 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <3EB18DDF.50800@pacbell.net>
References: <3EB18B4B.1050208@pacbell.net> <20030501211104.GR12607@primate.net> <3EB18DDF.50800@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <20030501212038.GS12607@primate.net>

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:13:03PM -0700, Bill Honeycutt wrote:
 
> Unfortunately, realtime :-/

	A cheap hack would be to check the locale setting in
HTTP_USER_AGENT if it's set... maybe try getting something uesful from
HTTP_ACCEPT_CHARSET as well. Beyond that, you're probably going to need to
start building a database of non-us IP netblocks. You might be able to
find starting points at ARIN.net, APNIC.net and RIPE.net. There are also
some commercial service providers, like http://www.maxmind.com/ (just
discovered via google).


From wfhoney at pacbell.net  Thu May  1 14:27:29 2003
From: wfhoney at pacbell.net (Bill Honeycutt)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 14:27:29 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <20030501212038.GS12607@primate.net>
References: <3EB18B4B.1050208@pacbell.net> <20030501211104.GR12607@primate.net> <3EB18DDF.50800@pacbell.net> <20030501212038.GS12607@primate.net>
Message-ID: <3EB19141.9070209@pacbell.net>

Aaron T Porter wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:13:03PM -0700, Bill Honeycutt wrote:
>  
> 
>>Unfortunately, realtime :-/
> 
> 
> 	A cheap hack would be to check the locale setting in
> HTTP_USER_AGENT if it's set... maybe try getting something uesful from
> HTTP_ACCEPT_CHARSET as well. Beyond that, you're probably going to need to
> start building a database of non-us IP netblocks. You might be able to
> find starting points at ARIN.net, APNIC.net and RIPE.net. There are also
> some commercial service providers, like http://www.maxmind.com/ (just
> discovered via google).
> 

Kinda what I thought.  This is enough to run with!

Thanks Aaron and Alyosha!



From unixjavabob at yahoo.com  Thu May  1 14:54:17 2003
From: unixjavabob at yahoo.com (Bob Read)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 14:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <3EB19141.9070209@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <20030501215417.92544.qmail@web13801.mail.yahoo.com>

A not-as-good-as IP/locale caching solution:

If your requirement is lenient (ie some manager sez
"how many of our website users are from switzerland vs
# from france?"), you could do reverse-DNS lookup and
check the top-level domain for "country codes".  Not
efficient, and not a complete solution, but would be
trivial to implement.

Then, use sawmill to make pretty graphs of the logs.

But I must ask...what is the requirement?  What
exactly are you going to do based on the user's
locale?


--- Bill Honeycutt <wfhoney at pacbell.net> wrote:
> Aaron T Porter wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:13:03PM -0700, Bill
> Honeycutt wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >>Unfortunately, realtime :-/
> > 
> > 
> > 	A cheap hack would be to check the locale setting
> in
> > HTTP_USER_AGENT if it's set... maybe try getting
> something uesful from
> > HTTP_ACCEPT_CHARSET as well. Beyond that, you're
> probably going to need to
> > start building a database of non-us IP netblocks.
> You might be able to
> > find starting points at ARIN.net, APNIC.net and
> RIPE.net. There are also
> > some commercial service providers, like
> http://www.maxmind.com/ (just
> > discovered via google).
> > 
> 
> Kinda what I thought.  This is enough to run with!
> 
> Thanks Aaron and Alyosha!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug


=====
-----------------------------------------
Bob Read
Exit Code Incorporated
cell (510)-703-1634
unixjavabob at yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From atporter at primate.net  Thu May  1 15:01:04 2003
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:01:04 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <20030501215417.92544.qmail@web13801.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <3EB19141.9070209@pacbell.net> <20030501215417.92544.qmail@web13801.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20030501220104.GT12607@primate.net>

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:54:17PM -0700, Bob Read wrote:
> If your requirement is lenient (ie some manager sez
> "how many of our website users are from switzerland vs
> # from france?"), you could do reverse-DNS lookup and
> check the top-level domain for "country codes".  Not
> efficient, and not a complete solution, but would be
> trivial to implement.

	Better than DNS lookup would be a whois lookup for the netblock.


From unixjavabob at yahoo.com  Thu May  1 15:06:16 2003
From: unixjavabob at yahoo.com (Bob Read)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <20030501220104.GT12607@primate.net>
Message-ID: <20030501220616.80231.qmail@web13806.mail.yahoo.com>

good point.  A+ for Aaron.

T-shirt I heard about today:

"Shut up, or I'll replace you with a 3-line shell
script"

--- Aaron T Porter <atporter at primate.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:54:17PM -0700, Bob Read
> wrote:
> > If your requirement is lenient (ie some manager
> sez
> > "how many of our website users are from
> switzerland vs
> > # from france?"), you could do reverse-DNS lookup
> and
> > check the top-level domain for "country codes". 
> Not
> > efficient, and not a complete solution, but would
> be
> > trivial to implement.
> 
> 	Better than DNS lookup would be a whois lookup for
> the netblock.


=====
-----------------------------------------
Bob Read
Exit Code Incorporated
cell (510)-703-1634
unixjavabob at yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From atporter at primate.net  Thu May  1 15:14:27 2003
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:14:27 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <20030501220616.80231.qmail@web13806.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030501220104.GT12607@primate.net> <20030501220616.80231.qmail@web13806.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20030501221427.GV12607@primate.net>

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 03:06:16PM -0700, Bob Read wrote:
> 
> T-shirt I heard about today:
> 
> "Shut up, or I'll replace you with a 3-line shell
> script"

	Close:
	http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/frustrations/374d/


From unixjavabob at yahoo.com  Thu May  1 15:17:45 2003
From: unixjavabob at yahoo.com (Bob Read)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] off-topic: RE: efficiency
Message-ID: <20030501221745.97298.qmail@web13801.mail.yahoo.com>

> 	My perl code is rarely (if ever) described as
> efficient :)

Speaking of efficiency, I have blueprints for a very
efficient toaster-powered spacecraft/rocket:

The engines derive their energy from a rack of
toasters.  The idea here is that as long as those
toasters are making toast, the engines keep running.

And since everyone knows that toast is edible, the
spacecraft needs to carry only a fraction of the mass
of foodstuffs of a normal rocket, thus reducing the
mass of fuel required.  When you sit down and do the
math, the total mass of the spacecraft is asymptotic
to zero as you increase the number of toasters.

Aaron, you might want to pitch this to your pals at
the DOE.  It's got "bling bling" written all over it.

Bob R.

=====
-----------------------------------------
Bob Read
Exit Code Incorporated
cell (510)-703-1634
unixjavabob at yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From nick at zork.net  Thu May  1 15:20:33 2003
From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:20:33 -0700
Subject: [buug] Goin' International
In-Reply-To: <20030501221427.GV12607@primate.net>
References: <20030501220104.GT12607@primate.net> <20030501220616.80231.qmail@web13806.mail.yahoo.com> <20030501221427.GV12607@primate.net>
Message-ID: <20030501222033.GM773@zork.net>

begin  Aaron T Porter  quotation:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 03:06:16PM -0700, Bob Read wrote:
> > 
> > T-shirt I heard about today:
> > 
> > "Shut up, or I'll replace you with a 3-line shell
> > script"
> 
> 	Close:
> 	http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/frustrations/374d/

	That's actually got a very long story behind it.

Short version:

	For a long time the san francisco linux CABAL, focused around
the now-defunct CoffeeNet, used to joke that there's no POSSIBLE way
that someone like Rick Moen could exist.  I mean, he goes to ALL THE
LUG MEETINGS and posts on ALL THESE LISTS and it's just GOT to be
automated.

	So we trolled a bunch of mailing list archives with stories of
how we were still debugging Rick Moen, telling bogus histories (like
how he was originally written in PostScript, because the office we
were in had a 68000 chip in the printer, but 8088s in all the desktop
boxes).  Ultimately, Rick started fighting back by saying stuff like
"oh be quiet, or I'll replace you with a very small Perl script".

	The game of linux cabal connections spreads, and ultimately
you get the thinkgeek folks hanging out with Rick in a professional
context.  Thus the t-shirt was more or less inevitable.

	I'm sure someone will rise up now to quibble with me on the
petty details.

-- 

end


From atporter at primate.net  Thu May  1 17:01:59 2003
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 17:01:59 -0700
Subject: [buug] This is a test
Message-ID: <20030502000159.GZ12607@primate.net>

	Only a test.


From cmsclaud at uga.edu  Thu May  1 22:48:56 2003
From: cmsclaud at uga.edu (Claude Rubinson)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 22:48:56 -0700
Subject: [buug] Linux-NTFS Tools
Message-ID: <20030502054856.GA23747@wagner>

For reference, the NTFS tools that I mentioned at tonight's meeting
are part of the Linux-NTFS Project which lives at
http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/.

Claude


From nkj at iaminsane.com  Fri May  2 11:39:42 2003
From: nkj at iaminsane.com (Nick Jennings)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:39:42 -0700
Subject: [buug] Module version information
Message-ID: <20030502183942.GA2134@iaminsane.com>

Is there a way to get kernel module version information on a running 
system? or do you need the source?

- Nick


From john at jjdev.com  Sat May  3 12:35:56 2003
From: john at jjdev.com (johnd)
Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 12:35:56 -0700
Subject: [buug] sendmail question
Message-ID: <20030503193556.GA2160@stang.jjdev.com>

I am getting this error:

May  3 12:20:48 WEBSVR sm-mta[14741]: h43JKmNn014741: to=<root at WEBSVR.paylesstoirs.com>, delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=local, pri=31459, dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent
q



I have this in my sendmail.cf
DMpaylesstoirs.com

I thought that would take care of it...but not.


anyone know what I need to add to sendmail.cf to make it get rid of the host
name?


-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--Henry Spencer (Usenet signature, November 1987)



From mikron at idiom.com  Sun May  4 00:53:44 2003
From: mikron at idiom.com (mikron)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 00:53:44 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
Message-ID: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com>

hey folks,

for a wide variety of reasons, I am sick of red hat linux, and I want 
to try something else for some of my home systems.  any suggestions?  I 
am thinking of trying debian or freebsd; both seem to have plenty of 
software available.


Some quick questions:

1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use 
runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?

2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a 
linux environment?

3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides 
yahoo, anyone else use bsd?

4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).

Thanks for your help,

Mike


From jan at caustic.org  Sun May  4 01:22:21 2003
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 01:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com>
Message-ID: <20030504012010.N62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>

On Sun, 4 May 2003, mikron wrote:

> 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a
> linux environment?

very little. the main thing to remember is that it's not linux, and it is
a bit different. think of it as a stripped down linux.

> 3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides
> yahoo, anyone else use bsd?

well, NTT does. there's a good install base all over.

> 4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).

FreeBSD
mostly because it's stable as fuck all, and rarely has issues. it's not
perfect, but it works, consistently.

how's that?

-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
	"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
	  my sham friends." -- Tom Waits



From atporter at primate.net  Sun May  4 01:27:16 2003
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 01:27:16 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504012010.N62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com> <20030504012010.N62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <20030504082716.GK12607@primate.net>

On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 01:22:21AM -0700, f.johan.beisser wrote:
> > 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a
> > linux environment?
> 
> very little. the main thing to remember is that it's not linux, and it is
> a bit different. think of it as a stripped down linux.

	I'd disagree on that. FreeBSD is *very* different from an admin
standpoint. Fortuately there is copious documentation, in particular the
FreeBSD Handbook (http://freebsd.org).


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Sun May  4 02:26:27 2003
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 02:26:27 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com>
References: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com>
Message-ID: <20030504092627.GA16795@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting mikron (mikron at idiom.com):

> for a wide variety of reasons, I am sick of red hat linux, and I want 
> to try something else for some of my home systems.

Not a bad idea.  Fortunately, you can try almost any Linux or *BSD
system for the cost of CDs from either mail-order outfits ($2/disk) or
made by downloading and burning your own.  The impression you'll get by
doing so will be of considerably more practical value than (for example)
the mostly content-free responses you're likely to get to your current
invitation of advocacy speeches.

> any suggestions?

Yeah:  Let us know what you're looking for, so that there can be at
least the faint hope of intelligent and useful replies.

> I am thinking of trying debian or freebsd; both seem to have plenty of
> software available.

Availability of software simply isn't a problem on any *ix.  As stated,
this is a bogus criterion.

> 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?

It stacks up in a manner that can be endlessly and tiresomely debated.
Honestly, what sort of question is  that?

> does it use runlevels....

Yep.  SysV init, FHS-compliant filesystem layout.
 
> or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?

You know, it would be fun converting a Debian system to use a BSD init,
but would take some work, and you'd have to remember to manually fix
scripts when you install/remove daemons.  But, to my knowledge, the only
Linux systems that furnish a BSD init by default are Slackware and
Stampede.  (Stampede offers both.)

> 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a 
> linux environment?

Read the excellent FreeBSD Handbook, at the project Web site.  The init
structure is of course different, the default partitioning will probably 
be unfamiliar, device naming is of course quite different, software
build systems are very different, filesystem layout differs (definitely 
not FHS!), and a lot of administrative details will be new to you.

But, if you've never run a BSD, _do_ try FreeBSD next.  It's an
excellent system in most respects, and will broaden your horizons.

On the other hand, if you want to really fundamentally understand Linux,
try Slackware.

> 3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides 
> yahoo, anyone else use bsd?

Pick one or both:  (1) Who the fuck cares?  (2) Not a clue.

> 4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).
                    ^^^^

_Fewer_.  Good grief, man.  And for Heaven's sake, fix your shift key.

Debian provides high standards of quality and efficient maintenance with
absolutely minimal sysadmin effort.  More at:
http://linuxmafia.com/debian/tips and the debian-* files inside
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/

-- 
Cheers,                    I've been suffering death by PowerPoint, recently.
Rick Moen                                                     -- Huw Davies
rick at linuxmafia.com  


From nick at zork.net  Sun May  4 07:09:54 2003
From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 07:09:54 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504092627.GA16795@linuxmafia.com>
References: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com> <20030504092627.GA16795@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20030504140953.GP773@zork.net>

begin  Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere  quotation:
> On the other hand, if you want to really fundamentally understand
> Linux, try Slackware.

	Or LFS, which isn't so much a distribution as a HOWTO for
building your own.

-- 

end


From john at jjdev.com  Sun May  4 09:54:24 2003
From: john at jjdev.com (John de la Garza)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 09:54:24 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com>
Message-ID: <0F94AB19-7E51-11D7-A413-000393CB11D4@jjdev.com>

consider slackware

http://slackware.com


it is actually a bit like BSD but it is Linux

it has a simple package management system

On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 12:53 AM, mikron wrote:

> hey folks,
>
> for a wide variety of reasons, I am sick of red hat linux, and I want 
> to try something else for some of my home systems.  any suggestions?  
> I am thinking of trying debian or freebsd; both seem to have plenty of 
> software available.
>
>
> Some quick questions:
>
> 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use 
> runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
>
> 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a 
> linux environment?
>
> 3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides 
> yahoo, anyone else use bsd?
>
> 4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug



From jan at caustic.org  Sun May  4 11:35:26 2003
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504082716.GK12607@primate.net>
Message-ID: <20030504113306.Y62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>

On Sun, 4 May 2003, Aaron T Porter wrote:

> 	I'd disagree on that. FreeBSD is *very* different from an admin
> standpoint. Fortuately there is copious documentation, in particular the
> FreeBSD Handbook (http://freebsd.org).

from an administrative standpoint, each flavour of UNIX is decidedly
different than the other. from a user perspective, it's much the same.

between man pages, some reading, and use, it takes very little to pick up
another UNIX-clone and know enough about it to understand what's going on.

Going from Linux to Plan9, though, would be a large leap.

-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
	"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
	  my sham friends." -- Tom Waits



From jan at caustic.org  Sun May  4 11:36:24 2003
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 11:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504140953.GP773@zork.net>
Message-ID: <20030504113556.X62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>

On Sun, 4 May 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:

> 	Or LFS, which isn't so much a distribution as a HOWTO for
> building your own.

due to my lack of time, i've not yet had a chance to run through LFS at
all. How much do you like it?

-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
	"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
	  my sham friends." -- Tom Waits



From sneakums at zork.net  Sun May  4 11:50:24 2003
From: sneakums at zork.net (Sean Neakums)
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 19:50:24 +0100
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504113306.Y62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org> (f. johan
 beisser's message of "Sun, 4 May 2003 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)")
References: <20030504113306.Y62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <6u7k96eebz.fsf@zork.zork.net>

"f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org> writes:

> Going from Linux to Plan9, though, would be a large leap.

For example, unless your hardware is among the limited range
supported, it's a large leap in to the valley of not working.

-- 
Sean Neakums - <sneakums at zork.net>


From nick at zork.net  Sun May  4 12:08:59 2003
From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:08:59 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504113556.X62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <20030504140953.GP773@zork.net> <20030504113556.X62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <20030504190859.GU773@zork.net>

begin  f.johan.beisser  quotation:
> due to my lack of time, i've not yet had a chance to run through LFS
> at all. How much do you like it?

	I have not ever gone through the LFS instructions
step-by-step, so I cannot speak to their qualities in that regard.
The LFS documents were, however, of great help to us in the initial
construction of the 2.x series of LNX-BBC.  2.0 was the first LNX-BBC
release that we compiled from scratch (using my novel new GAR
packaging system, which is also used by the GNOME project to
distribute testing releases).  

	If you're looking for automated source-compile distributions,
there are a few nowadays, with Gentoo being the most popular (or at
least the one with the best marketing/PR push).  I believe Rick has a
list of them in his copious documentation about the various free
Unixes.

	But as you read his docs, you'll grow to understand that
calling out "what distributions do you like, and why?" is likely to be
a futile effort.  Personal opinion and historical accident play too
strong a role for anyone's claims to be applicable to your situation.

	Fortunately, there is hope!  Most of the relevant
distributions provide downloadable ISO images or other installation
media at no charge!  Many are mirrored around the world on
high-bandwidth servers!  You can purchase a large cross-section of
free unix distros from some of the CD-ROM publishers for a minimal
fee, and then try them out as you go!

	Nothing beats personal experience on this one.  Give each
distro a couple weeks to a month, and then swap.  If you keep your
home directory backed up, you can almost act like nothing changed for
the most part.

-- 

end


From jan at caustic.org  Sun May  4 12:14:19 2003
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <6u7k96eebz.fsf@zork.zork.net>
Message-ID: <20030504121315.D62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>

On Sun, 4 May 2003, Sean Neakums wrote:

> For example, unless your hardware is among the limited range
> supported, it's a large leap in to the valley of not working.

well, like BSD was, and Solaris is, you buy the hardware to specifically
run that OS.

generally, that's not a bad idea anyway, despite it not being very
hackish.

-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
	"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
	  my sham friends." -- Tom Waits



From jan at caustic.org  Sun May  4 12:31:23 2003
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504190859.GU773@zork.net>
Message-ID: <20030504122501.K62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>

On Sun, 4 May 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:

> The LFS documents were, however, of great help to us in the initial
> construction of the 2.x series of LNX-BBC.  2.0 was the first LNX-BBC
> release that we compiled from scratch (using my novel new GAR packaging
> system, which is also used by the GNOME project to distribute testing
> releases).

hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy with the
gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like something more
stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the way to go.

-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
	"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
	  my sham friends." -- Tom Waits



From nick at zork.net  Sun May  4 12:39:41 2003
From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:39:41 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504122501.K62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <20030504190859.GU773@zork.net> <20030504122501.K62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <20030504193941.GV773@zork.net>

begin  f.johan.beisser  quotation:
> hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy
> with the gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like
> something more stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the
> way to go.

	Great.  You may also wish to consider Debian, which installs a
base system of about 80MB, and you install only what you need.
Dependencies are solved automatically.

-- 

end


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Sun May  4 17:31:36 2003
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:31:36 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504193941.GV773@zork.net>
References: <20030504190859.GU773@zork.net> <20030504122501.K62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org> <20030504193941.GV773@zork.net>
Message-ID: <20030505003136.GI16795@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):

> Great.  You may also wish to consider Debian, which installs a
> base system of about 80MB, and you install only what you need.
> Dependencies are solved automatically.

Concur -- but it's difficult to beat Slackware, Stampede, or the various
build-from-source distributions (Gentoo, LFS = Linux from Scratch,
Sourcemage, Lunar Linux, Rock Linux, Sorcerer) for extreme lack of
cruft.

Debian has a very distinct appeal once you master some Debianisms, 
but it's not sparse, nearly-bare-metal Unix.

http://www.distrowatch.com/ may be of some use to people looking for
Linux distributions to try.  It even has a separate list of
build-from-source distributions -- which omits LFS, perhaps on the
principle you cited that it's less a distribution than a set of
system-construction documentation.

-- 
Cheers,                            Why, yes, _of course_ I'm an elitist.   
Rick Moen                          Isn't everyone?              
rick at linuxmafia.com


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Sun May  4 17:35:34 2003
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:35:34 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504122501.K62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <20030504190859.GU773@zork.net> <20030504122501.K62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <20030505003534.GJ16795@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting f.johan.beisser (jan at caustic.org):

> hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy with the
> gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like something more
> stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the way to go.

In addition to comments I posted to Nick, a moment ago, if you want to
explore on the BSD side instead, I'd consider NetBSD the most stripped
down of that family -- though FreeBSD otherwise better meets my needs.

I'd surmise that NetBSD's relative sparseness is a side-effect of its
extremely portable design, for whatever that's worth.

-- 
Cheers,      "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first
Rick Moen     woman she meets, and then teams up with three complete strangers
rick at linuxmafia.com       to kill again."  -- Rick Polito's That TV Guy column,
              describing the movie _The Wizard of Oz_


From michael1cat at yahoo.com  Sun May  4 19:48:38 2003
From: michael1cat at yahoo.com (Michael Paoli)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 19:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com>
Message-ID: <20030505024838.15550.qmail@web40803.mail.yahoo.com>

Well, I'll attempt to not be too redundant, anyway ...
--- mikron <mikron at idiom.com> wrote:
> for a wide variety of reasons, I am sick of red hat linux, and I want
> to try something else for some of my home systems.  any suggestions?  I
> am thinking of trying debian or freebsd; both seem to have plenty of
Knowing why you're sick of Red Hat and why you're thinking of Debian and
FreeBSD - and perhaps also what family(/ies) of hardware you have to
play with might help a bit.
> 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use
> runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
Debian has a rock solid excellent packaging system - but it's not RPM.
Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is superior
to RPMs ... but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard for LINUX
distributions.  Debian does support installation of RPM packages in one
of two ways:
A) recommended method - use the Debian package alien - it will handle
RPM packages and track them within the Debian package management system.
B) One can install rpm and its requisite libraries and use rpm itself on
Debian - this is however generally not recommended, as the Debian
package management system will be unaware of packages handled through
that means.
And my random comment - who'd want RPMs on Debian anyway?  Most anything
anyone would ever want is already available an packaged as a native
Debian package anyway. :-)  [Okay, so maybe there may be some exceptions
if you want to install come commercial closed-source binary-only
RPM packages.]
Debian uses a System V / LSB style init/runlevel/rc configuration.
> 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a
> linux environment?
I haven't really worked with the *BSDs, but I'd guestimate it would
mostly depend on how many non-LINUX UNIXes one is familiar with.  Every
UNIX(-like) Operating System is a bit different, and for better or
worse those differences tend to be most noticeable in the Systems
Administration realm.  Once one's worked with enough different
"flavors", one can at least better anticipate where to expect the
differences to show up - but there's always at least some learning
curve.
> 3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides
> yahoo, anyone else use bsd?
You can find at least some of this information by poking around the
relevant sites and doing some research on the Internet.  Hard numbers
are a bit harder to come by, though - particularly where software can be
freely duplicated and used, and need not be sold.  Extensive (balanced
and comprehensive) survey techniques are probably the best way to gather
such data - unfortunately that's a fairly expensive process - hence the
data is a bit more sparse than one may wish.
> 4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).
Debian rocks! - cool, very solid, best in the "free" senses of the word.

Other random comments:
Debian isn't necessarily the easiest LINUX distribution to install (not
necessarily a top recommendation for a LINUX/UNIX newbie if they're
going to install it themselves unassisted).
Some excellent ways to stay on top of Debian stuff - subscribe to Debian
Announcements/News (debian-announce) and Debian Weekly News
(debian-news).  You can also peruse the archives of these items.
If you run Debian system(s), you should probably also subscribe to
debian-security-announce.
Since you mentioned you have Red Hat installed, there's an item in the
most recent Debian Weekly news that may be of interest - see the
item: "Installing Debian over a remote GNU/Linux System.
This document explains the steps required to change the operating system
running on a remote system to Debian." in:
http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/17/
No guarantees that's easier or preferred means compared to doing an
ordinary Debian installation - but with Red Hat already installed, it
may be worth looking at (if nothing else, it can be at least a useful
"trick" for remotely converting a system to Debian).

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From nick at zork.net  Sun May  4 19:52:27 2003
From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 19:52:27 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030505024838.15550.qmail@web40803.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com> <20030505024838.15550.qmail@web40803.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20030505025227.GZ773@zork.net>

begin  Michael Paoli  quotation:
> --- mikron <mikron at idiom.com> wrote:
> > 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use
> > runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
> Debian has a rock solid excellent packaging system - but it's not
> RPM.  Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is
> superior to RPMs ... but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard
> for LINUX distributions.  

	Bullshit.  Debian's packages are a pain in the ass, and have
no real benefit over RPM.  What Debian wins at is package *policy*.
They make sure that all the packages are created in a consistent
unified manner, making tools like apt even *possible*.  

	Apt is not the package manager -- it's just a downloader and
dependency resolver.  It's an amazing tool, but it makes use of the
fact that debian is VERY PICKY about packaging policy.

-- 

end


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Sun May  4 20:24:43 2003
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:24:43 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030505024838.15550.qmail@web40803.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com> <20030505024838.15550.qmail@web40803.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20030505032443.GO16795@linuxmafia.com>

[Hoping none of this comes across as harsh; it's just that you hit a
number of points that I've been trying to educate people on.]

Quoting Michael Paoli (michael1cat at yahoo.com):

> Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is superior
> to RPMs ...

This is vague.  Moreover, it commits a category error, in as much as
Debian's package system can be used with RPMs -- either on Debian or on
other distributions including Red Hat.

Please read: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/debian-policy
Salient points:  (1) There's nothing the least bit wrong with either the
RPM package format or the rpm package-handling tool.  (2) What is
primarily distinctive about Debian is neither its package format nor its
package-handling tools, but rather its _policy_ -- a term with a
technical meaning in this context, extensively defined in the Debian
Policy document (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/), and strictly
enforced upon package maintainers by automated package-checking software.

> ...but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard for LINUX distributions.

Honestly, this turns out to be just about semantically null:  When
interpreted literally, it's arguably true, but seems to say a great deal
more than it actually does.

> Debian does support installation of RPM packages in one
> of two ways:
> A) recommended method - use the Debian package alien - it will handle
> RPM packages and track them within the Debian package management system.
> B) One can install rpm and its requisite libraries and use rpm itself on
> Debian - this is however generally not recommended, as the Debian
> package management system will be unaware of packages handled through
> that means.

This is true, but, since you mentioned LSB, I'm surprised you didn't
also mention the Debian "lsb" package, installation of which
more-or-less ensures full LSB v. 1.2 compliance.  It's kind of a
core-structure shim with a list of 28 dependencies that collectively
furnish all required support for the full LSB spec:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/lsb.html

I say "more or less" because it's not technically LSB-certified through
passage of official test suites, but reportedly does the job.

> And my random comment - who'd want RPMs on Debian anyway?  Most anything
> anyone would ever want is already available an packaged as a native
> Debian package anyway. :-)

Over 8000 packages on the "stable" branch; over 11000 on the "testing"
and "unstable" ones.  My production servers track the "testing" branch.

> Extensive (balanced and comprehensive) survey techniques....

Hah hah!  You slay me.  You really do.

> Other random comments: Debian isn't necessarily the easiest LINUX
> distribution to install (not necessarily a top recommendation for a
> LINUX/UNIX newbie if they're going to install it themselves
> unassisted).

This distressingly common erroneous comment reflects the nearly
universal lack of comprehension that Debian can be installed through
your choice of about a dozen different installer programs, which differ
very widely -- and a lack of comprehension of the fact that Debian is a
system architecture and maintenance regime, _not_ a particular installer
program.

Thus, for example, if you use Knoppix as your installer program (which
means you're on x86 and wish to get a "kitchen sink" installation),
Debian _is_ just about the easiest Linux distribution to install:  The
Knoppix installer script does unsurpassed and totally automated hardware
recognition, and asks a bare minimum of questions.  (By the same token, 
expert users would find it lacking in flexibility.)

No matter whether you use the Knoppix installer, the Progeny Graphical
Installer ISO, the Xandros Desktop OS installer, the Libranet installer,
the (somewhat obsolete but still usable) Stormix installer, or the
much-maligned but highly flexible plain-vanilla official Debian
installer, what results at the end is Debian -- in any meaningful sense.

-- 
Cheers,           "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
Rick Moen         those who do.  And, for the people who like country music,
rick at linuxmafia.com         denigrate means 'put down'."      -- Bob Newhart


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Sun May  4 20:42:24 2003
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:42:24 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030505025227.GZ773@zork.net>
References: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com> <20030505024838.15550.qmail@web40803.mail.yahoo.com> <20030505025227.GZ773@zork.net>
Message-ID: <20030505034224.GP16795@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):

> Bullshit.  Debian's packages are a pain in the ass, and have no real
> benefit over RPM.  What Debian wins at is package *policy*.  They make
> sure that all the packages are created in a consistent unified manner,
> making tools like apt even *possible*.  
> 
> Apt is not the package manager -- it's just a downloader and
> dependency resolver.  It's an amazing tool, but it makes use of the
> fact that debian is VERY PICKY about packaging policy.

Strongly concur.  This is the main point I try to get across in
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/debian-policy .

To commenting further (and my real reason for AOLing your post), the
obnoxiously common notion that the rpm package format somehow comprises
a "standard" is pretty much clueless from top to bottom:  Just pulling
down a *.i386.rpm package from J. Random Archive and doing "rpm -Uvh
foo.i386.rpm" in expectation of success -- merely because you run _some_
rpm-based distribution for Intel -- is an excellent way to fux0r your
system, and is a common bonehead error among new users.  In fact, only
if the package is built for specifically _both_ your particular
distribution _and_ its distribution release version are you reasonably
likely to be able to install it -- dependencies permitting.

_LSB_ qualifies as a "standard" in the sense of the term contemplated.
RPM is merely a file format, variously implemented.

-- 
Cheers,           find / -user your -name base -print | xargs chown us:us
Rick Moen
rick at linuxmafia.com


From nick at zork.net  Sun May  4 20:58:52 2003
From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:58:52 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030505034224.GP16795@linuxmafia.com>
References: <20030504075344.GC15931@lassen.idiom.com> <20030505024838.15550.qmail@web40803.mail.yahoo.com> <20030505025227.GZ773@zork.net> <20030505034224.GP16795@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20030505035852.GA773@zork.net>

begin  Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere  quotation:
> _LSB_ qualifies as a "standard" in the sense of the term contemplated.
> RPM is merely a file format, variously implemented.

	In one regard, debian's package format is somewhat more
predictably engineered, such that one can claim that it's a more
"standard" system.

	Basically any binary package format consists of two things: a
filesystem archive (the files to be installed, installation clean-up
scripts to be run, etc) and a collection of metadata (dependency
lists, version info, maintainer e-mail etc.).

	In the case of dpkg, the format is a POSIX-standard "ar"
archive of the sort used for static libraries.  This "ar" file has two
tar files inside of it: control.tar.gz and data.tar.gz.  The files
inside each of these are all shell scripts, perl scripts, files to be
installed, etc.  You could unpack and install a debian binary package
on any Linux system using standard Unix tools.

	In fact, most of the arguments about which packaging tool is
older (rpm or dpkg) are often resolved with the explanation "When rpm
was written, dpkg was still a shell script".

	RPM on the other hand, as a file format, takes a different
approach.  Basically it's a cpio archive with a big binary dump of a C
struct on the front.  You basically have to yank values out based on
their position as though it were a low-level media format or
something.

	But here's the clincher:  this data structure changes in size
and position of its members between revisions of the rpm format on Red
Hat alone, and companies like SuSE have packaged and released rpm
tools with metadata structs that differ from any and all Red Hat RPMs.
That is to say, RPM is *not* a standard even as an on-disk file
format.

	What the LSB does is not just standardize on RPM (which only
means that the rpm installer tool has to be present -- it doesn't mean
that the whole OS needs to *use* RPM for its packages), it
specifically defines a particular *version* of the rpm suite and file
format.  This means that Red Hat likely has to package *two* copies of
the rpm tool: one for its latest-and-greatest hacked up format, and
one for the LSB.

-- 

end


From jan at caustic.org  Sun May  4 21:07:12 2003
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 21:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030505003534.GJ16795@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20030504210109.W62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>

On Sun, 4 May 2003, Rick Moen wrote:

> In addition to comments I posted to Nick, a moment ago, if you want to
> explore on the BSD side instead, I'd consider NetBSD the most stripped
> down of that family -- though FreeBSD otherwise better meets my needs.

odd you should mention that, i've actually not used linux since about 96
or 97 in favour of BSDs. Before that, i was pretty much a RedHat user for
most things.

In general, FreeBSD does what it says it'll do. It's my default
workstation OS, and by far the one i'm most familiar with. But, it's
growing in ugly horrible ways, that make it less than ideal for something
like a firewall, or a server.

> I'd surmise that NetBSD's relative sparseness is a side-effect of its
> extremely portable design, for whatever that's worth.

NetBSDs real drawback is the installer. it takes a long while to get used
to.

Over NetBSD, i'd suggest OpenBSD. That's my own bias though.


-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
	"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
	  my sham friends." -- Tom Waits



From lramos3 at satx.rr.com  Sun May  4 21:08:15 2003
From: lramos3 at satx.rr.com (luis)
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 23:08:15 -0500
Subject: [buug] Re: Buug digest, Vol 1 #498 - 14 msgs, tired of red hat
References: <20030505034102.24110.52535.Mailman@weak.org>
Message-ID: <3EB5E3AF.2B0A8545@satx.rr.com>

buug-request at weak.org wrote:

> Send Buug mailing list submissions to
>         buug at weak.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         buug-request at weak.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         buug-admin at weak.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Buug digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (John de la Garza)
>    2. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (f.johan.beisser)
>    3. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (f.johan.beisser)
>    4. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Sean Neakums)
>    5. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Nick Moffitt)
>    6. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (f.johan.beisser)
>    7. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (f.johan.beisser)
>    8. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Nick Moffitt)
>    9. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Rick Moen)
>   10. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Rick Moen)
>   11. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Michael Paoli)
>   12. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Nick Moffitt)
>   13. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Rick Moen)
>   14. Re: tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with (Rick Moen)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 09:54:24 -0700
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> Cc: buug at weak.org
> To: mikron <mikron at idiom.com>
> From: John de la Garza <john at jjdev.com>
>
> consider slackware
>
> http://slackware.com
>
> it is actually a bit like BSD but it is Linux
>
> it has a simple package management system
>
> On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 12:53 AM, mikron wrote:
>
> > hey folks,
> >
> > for a wide variety of reasons, I am sick of red hat linux, and I want
> > to try something else for some of my home systems.  any suggestions?
> > I am thinking of trying debian or freebsd; both seem to have plenty of
> > software available.
> >
> >
> > Some quick questions:
> >
> > 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use
> > runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
> >
> > 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a
> > linux environment?
> >
> > 3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides
> > yahoo, anyone else use bsd?
> >
> > 4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).
> >
> > Thanks for your help,
> >
> > Mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > Buug mailing list
> > Buug at weak.org
> > http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org>
> To: Aaron T Porter <atporter at primate.net>
> cc: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Aaron T Porter wrote:
>
> >       I'd disagree on that. FreeBSD is *very* different from an admin
> > standpoint. Fortuately there is copious documentation, in particular the
> > FreeBSD Handbook (http://freebsd.org).
>
> from an administrative standpoint, each flavour of UNIX is decidedly
> different than the other. from a user perspective, it's much the same.
>
> between man pages, some reading, and use, it takes very little to pick up
> another UNIX-clone and know enough about it to understand what's going on.
>
> Going from Linux to Plan9, though, would be a large leap.
>
> -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
>   http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
>         "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
>           my sham friends." -- Tom Waits
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 11:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org>
> To: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> cc: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:
>
> >       Or LFS, which isn't so much a distribution as a HOWTO for
> > building your own.
>
> due to my lack of time, i've not yet had a chance to run through LFS at
> all. How much do you like it?
>
> -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
>   http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
>         "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
>           my sham friends." -- Tom Waits
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Sean Neakums <sneakums at zork.net>
> Organization: The Emadonics Institute
> Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 19:50:24 +0100
>
> "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org> writes:
>
> > Going from Linux to Plan9, though, would be a large leap.
>
> For example, unless your hardware is among the limited range
> supported, it's a large leap in to the valley of not working.
>
> --
> Sean Neakums - <sneakums at zork.net>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:08:59 -0700
> From: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> begin  f.johan.beisser  quotation:
> > due to my lack of time, i've not yet had a chance to run through LFS
> > at all. How much do you like it?
>
>         I have not ever gone through the LFS instructions
> step-by-step, so I cannot speak to their qualities in that regard.
> The LFS documents were, however, of great help to us in the initial
> construction of the 2.x series of LNX-BBC.  2.0 was the first LNX-BBC
> release that we compiled from scratch (using my novel new GAR
> packaging system, which is also used by the GNOME project to
> distribute testing releases).
>
>         If you're looking for automated source-compile distributions,
> there are a few nowadays, with Gentoo being the most popular (or at
> least the one with the best marketing/PR push).  I believe Rick has a
> list of them in his copious documentation about the various free
> Unixes.
>
>         But as you read his docs, you'll grow to understand that
> calling out "what distributions do you like, and why?" is likely to be
> a futile effort.  Personal opinion and historical accident play too
> strong a role for anyone's claims to be applicable to your situation.
>
>         Fortunately, there is hope!  Most of the relevant
> distributions provide downloadable ISO images or other installation
> media at no charge!  Many are mirrored around the world on
> high-bandwidth servers!  You can purchase a large cross-section of
> free unix distros from some of the CD-ROM publishers for a minimal
> fee, and then try them out as you go!
>
>         Nothing beats personal experience on this one.  Give each
> distro a couple weeks to a month, and then swap.  If you keep your
> home directory backed up, you can almost act like nothing changed for
> the most part.
>
> --
>
> end
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org>
> To: Sean Neakums <sneakums at zork.net>
> cc: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Sean Neakums wrote:
>
> > For example, unless your hardware is among the limited range
> > supported, it's a large leap in to the valley of not working.
>
> well, like BSD was, and Solaris is, you buy the hardware to specifically
> run that OS.
>
> generally, that's not a bad idea anyway, despite it not being very
> hackish.
>
> -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
>   http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
>         "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
>           my sham friends." -- Tom Waits
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan at caustic.org>
> To: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> cc: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:
>
> > The LFS documents were, however, of great help to us in the initial
> > construction of the 2.x series of LNX-BBC.  2.0 was the first LNX-BBC
> > release that we compiled from scratch (using my novel new GAR packaging
> > system, which is also used by the GNOME project to distribute testing
> > releases).
>
> hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy with the
> gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like something more
> stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the way to go.
>
> -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
>   http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
>         "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
>           my sham friends." -- Tom Waits
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 12:39:41 -0700
> From: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> begin  f.johan.beisser  quotation:
> > hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy
> > with the gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like
> > something more stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the
> > way to go.
>
>         Great.  You may also wish to consider Debian, which installs a
> base system of about 80MB, and you install only what you need.
> Dependencies are solved automatically.
>
> --
>
> end
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:31:36 -0700
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>
> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):
>
> > Great.  You may also wish to consider Debian, which installs a
> > base system of about 80MB, and you install only what you need.
> > Dependencies are solved automatically.
>
> Concur -- but it's difficult to beat Slackware, Stampede, or the various
> build-from-source distributions (Gentoo, LFS = Linux from Scratch,
> Sourcemage, Lunar Linux, Rock Linux, Sorcerer) for extreme lack of
> cruft.
>
> Debian has a very distinct appeal once you master some Debianisms,
> but it's not sparse, nearly-bare-metal Unix.
>
> http://www.distrowatch.com/ may be of some use to people looking for
> Linux distributions to try.  It even has a separate list of
> build-from-source distributions -- which omits LFS, perhaps on the
> principle you cited that it's less a distribution than a set of
> system-construction documentation.
>
> --
> Cheers,                            Why, yes, _of course_ I'm an elitist.
> Rick Moen                          Isn't everyone?
> rick at linuxmafia.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:35:34 -0700
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>
> Quoting f.johan.beisser (jan at caustic.org):
>
> > hmm. i'll dig around the LFS docs. right now, i'm getting grumpy with the
> > gratuitous cruft included in most OSs, and i'd like something more
> > stripped down.. i'd prefer BSDs, but LFS may be the way to go.
>
> In addition to comments I posted to Nick, a moment ago, if you want to
> explore on the BSD side instead, I'd consider NetBSD the most stripped
> down of that family -- though FreeBSD otherwise better meets my needs.
>
> I'd surmise that NetBSD's relative sparseness is a side-effect of its
> extremely portable design, for whatever that's worth.
>
> --
> Cheers,      "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first
> Rick Moen     woman she meets, and then teams up with three complete strangers
> rick at linuxmafia.com       to kill again."  -- Rick Polito's That TV Guy column,
>               describing the movie _The Wizard of Oz_
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 19:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Michael Paoli <michael1cat at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> To: buug at weak.org
>
> Well, I'll attempt to not be too redundant, anyway ...
> --- mikron <mikron at idiom.com> wrote:
> > for a wide variety of reasons, I am sick of red hat linux, and I want
> > to try something else for some of my home systems.  any suggestions?  I
> > am thinking of trying debian or freebsd; both seem to have plenty of
> Knowing why you're sick of Red Hat and why you're thinking of Debian and
> FreeBSD - and perhaps also what family(/ies) of hardware you have to
> play with might help a bit.
> > 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use
> > runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
> Debian has a rock solid excellent packaging system - but it's not RPM.
> Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is superior
> to RPMs ... but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard for LINUX
> distributions.  Debian does support installation of RPM packages in one
> of two ways:
> A) recommended method - use the Debian package alien - it will handle
> RPM packages and track them within the Debian package management system.
> B) One can install rpm and its requisite libraries and use rpm itself on
> Debian - this is however generally not recommended, as the Debian
> package management system will be unaware of packages handled through
> that means.
> And my random comment - who'd want RPMs on Debian anyway?  Most anything
> anyone would ever want is already available an packaged as a native
> Debian package anyway. :-)  [Okay, so maybe there may be some exceptions
> if you want to install come commercial closed-source binary-only
> RPM packages.]
> Debian uses a System V / LSB style init/runlevel/rc configuration.
> > 2) How much of a learning curve is there for freebsd coming from a
> > linux environment?
> I haven't really worked with the *BSDs, but I'd guestimate it would
> mostly depend on how many non-LINUX UNIXes one is familiar with.  Every
> UNIX(-like) Operating System is a bit different, and for better or
> worse those differences tend to be most noticeable in the Systems
> Administration realm.  Once one's worked with enough different
> "flavors", one can at least better anticipate where to expect the
> differences to show up - but there's always at least some learning
> curve.
> > 3) How widespread is *bsd or debian in the corporate world?  besides
> > yahoo, anyone else use bsd?
> You can find at least some of this information by poking around the
> relevant sites and doing some research on the Internet.  Hard numbers
> are a bit harder to come by, though - particularly where software can be
> freely duplicated and used, and need not be sold.  Extensive (balanced
> and comprehensive) survey techniques are probably the best way to gather
> such data - unfortunately that's a fairly expensive process - hence the
> data is a bit more sparse than one may wish.
> > 4) In 50 words or less, why you use debian(or freebsd).
> Debian rocks! - cool, very solid, best in the "free" senses of the word.
>
> Other random comments:
> Debian isn't necessarily the easiest LINUX distribution to install (not
> necessarily a top recommendation for a LINUX/UNIX newbie if they're
> going to install it themselves unassisted).
> Some excellent ways to stay on top of Debian stuff - subscribe to Debian
> Announcements/News (debian-announce) and Debian Weekly News
> (debian-news).  You can also peruse the archives of these items.
> If you run Debian system(s), you should probably also subscribe to
> debian-security-announce.
> Since you mentioned you have Red Hat installed, there's an item in the
> most recent Debian Weekly news that may be of interest - see the
> item: "Installing Debian over a remote GNU/Linux System.
> This document explains the steps required to change the operating system
> running on a remote system to Debian." in:
> http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/17/
> No guarantees that's easier or preferred means compared to doing an
> ordinary Debian installation - but with Red Hat already installed, it
> may be worth looking at (if nothing else, it can be at least a useful
> "trick" for remotely converting a system to Debian).
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 19:52:27 -0700
> From: Nick Moffitt <nick at zork.net>
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
>
> begin  Michael Paoli  quotation:
> > --- mikron <mikron at idiom.com> wrote:
> > > 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros?  does it use
> > > runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown?
> > Debian has a rock solid excellent packaging system - but it's not
> > RPM.  Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is
> > superior to RPMs ... but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard
> > for LINUX distributions.
>
>         Bullshit.  Debian's packages are a pain in the ass, and have
> no real benefit over RPM.  What Debian wins at is package *policy*.
> They make sure that all the packages are created in a consistent
> unified manner, making tools like apt even *possible*.
>
>         Apt is not the package manager -- it's just a downloader and
> dependency resolver.  It's an amazing tool, but it makes use of the
> fact that debian is VERY PICKY about packaging policy.
>
> --
>
> end
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:24:43 -0700
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>
> [Hoping none of this comes across as harsh; it's just that you hit a
> number of points that I've been trying to educate people on.]
>
> Quoting Michael Paoli (michael1cat at yahoo.com):
>
> > Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is superior
> > to RPMs ...
>
> This is vague.  Moreover, it commits a category error, in as much as
> Debian's package system can be used with RPMs -- either on Debian or on
> other distributions including Red Hat.
>
> Please read: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/debian-policy
> Salient points:  (1) There's nothing the least bit wrong with either the
> RPM package format or the rpm package-handling tool.  (2) What is
> primarily distinctive about Debian is neither its package format nor its
> package-handling tools, but rather its _policy_ -- a term with a
> technical meaning in this context, extensively defined in the Debian
> Policy document (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/), and strictly
> enforced upon package maintainers by automated package-checking software.
>
> > ...but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard for LINUX distributions.
>
> Honestly, this turns out to be just about semantically null:  When
> interpreted literally, it's arguably true, but seems to say a great deal
> more than it actually does.
>
> > Debian does support installation of RPM packages in one
> > of two ways:
> > A) recommended method - use the Debian package alien - it will handle
> > RPM packages and track them within the Debian package management system.
> > B) One can install rpm and its requisite libraries and use rpm itself on
> > Debian - this is however generally not recommended, as the Debian
> > package management system will be unaware of packages handled through
> > that means.
>
> This is true, but, since you mentioned LSB, I'm surprised you didn't
> also mention the Debian "lsb" package, installation of which
> more-or-less ensures full LSB v. 1.2 compliance.  It's kind of a
> core-structure shim with a list of 28 dependencies that collectively
> furnish all required support for the full LSB spec:
> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/lsb.html
>
> I say "more or less" because it's not technically LSB-certified through
> passage of official test suites, but reportedly does the job.
>
> > And my random comment - who'd want RPMs on Debian anyway?  Most anything
> > anyone would ever want is already available an packaged as a native
> > Debian package anyway. :-)
>
> Over 8000 packages on the "stable" branch; over 11000 on the "testing"
> and "unstable" ones.  My production servers track the "testing" branch.
>
> > Extensive (balanced and comprehensive) survey techniques....
>
> Hah hah!  You slay me.  You really do.
>
> > Other random comments: Debian isn't necessarily the easiest LINUX
> > distribution to install (not necessarily a top recommendation for a
> > LINUX/UNIX newbie if they're going to install it themselves
> > unassisted).
>
> This distressingly common erroneous comment reflects the nearly
> universal lack of comprehension that Debian can be installed through
> your choice of about a dozen different installer programs, which differ
> very widely -- and a lack of comprehension of the fact that Debian is a
> system architecture and maintenance regime, _not_ a particular installer
> program.
>
> Thus, for example, if you use Knoppix as your installer program (which
> means you're on x86 and wish to get a "kitchen sink" installation),
> Debian _is_ just about the easiest Linux distribution to install:  The
> Knoppix installer script does unsurpassed and totally automated hardware
> recognition, and asks a bare minimum of questions.  (By the same token,
> expert users would find it lacking in flexibility.)
>
> No matter whether you use the Knoppix installer, the Progeny Graphical
> Installer ISO, the Xandros Desktop OS installer, the Libranet installer,
> the (somewhat obsolete but still usable) Stormix installer, or the
> much-maligned but highly flexible plain-vanilla official Debian
> installer, what results at the end is Debian -- in any meaningful sense.
>
> --
> Cheers,           "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
> Rick Moen         those who do.  And, for the people who like country music,
> rick at linuxmafia.com         denigrate means 'put down'."      -- Bob Newhart
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:42:24 -0700
> To: buug at weak.org
> Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>
> Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):
>
> > Bullshit.  Debian's packages are a pain in the ass, and have no real
> > benefit over RPM.  What Debian wins at is package *policy*.  They make
> > sure that all the packages are created in a consistent unified manner,
> > making tools like apt even *possible*.
> >
> > Apt is not the package manager -- it's just a downloader and
> > dependency resolver.  It's an amazing tool, but it makes use of the
> > fact that debian is VERY PICKY about packaging policy.
>
> Strongly concur.  This is the main point I try to get across in
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/debian-policy .
>
> To commenting further (and my real reason for AOLing your post), the
> obnoxiously common notion that the rpm package format somehow comprises
> a "standard" is pretty much clueless from top to bottom:  Just pulling
> down a *.i386.rpm package from J. Random Archive and doing "rpm -Uvh
> foo.i386.rpm" in expectation of success -- merely because you run _some_
> rpm-based distribution for Intel -- is an excellent way to fux0r your
> system, and is a common bonehead error among new users.  In fact, only
> if the package is built for specifically _both_ your particular
> distribution _and_ its distribution release version are you reasonably
> likely to be able to install it -- dependencies permitting.
>
> _LSB_ qualifies as a "standard" in the sense of the term contemplated.
> RPM is merely a file format, variously implemented.
>
> --
> Cheers,           find / -user your -name base -print | xargs chown us:us
> Rick Moen
> rick at linuxmafia.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
>
> End of Buug Digest

   Once you try FreeBSD, you may very well like it much better than Linux.  For
example, it's package/ports handling abilities are much more advanced than Linux's.
You'll have to know more about configuring programs than with Linux.  In other words,
it has less eye candy.  Good luck.  Luis



From kkeller-buug at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us  Sun May  4 22:23:17 2003
From: kkeller-buug at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (Keith Keller)
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 22:23:17 -0700
Subject: [buug] Re: tired of red hat
In-Reply-To: <3EB5E3AF.2B0A8545@satx.rr.com>
References: <20030505034102.24110.52535.Mailman@weak.org> <3EB5E3AF.2B0A8545@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20030505052317.GA22225@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>

On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 11:08:15PM -0500, luis wrote:
[487 lines snipped]
>    Once you try FreeBSD, you may very well like it much better than Linux.  For
> example, it's package/ports handling abilities are much more advanced than Linux's.
> You'll have to know more about configuring programs than with Linux.  In other words,
> it has less eye candy.  Good luck.  Luis

Was it *really* necessary to keep all 487 lines of the original
digest just to add your four?

Anyway, just to impart some slight purpose to my message, the way
I've heard Slackware sometimes described is "as close to *BSD as
linux gets."  That's no longer as true, with the ports/packages
collections, but in terms of how the distro feels under the
fingers, there's still something to the statement.  And its
package format is a standard tar.gz, in which may be included
an install shell script.  How easy can you get?!?  No dependency
checking though, which may or may not be important.

--keith

-- 
kkeller at speakeasy.net
alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ:  http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom



From rick at linuxmafia.com  Mon May  5 01:19:06 2003
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 01:19:06 -0700
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504210109.W62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <20030505003534.GJ16795@linuxmafia.com> <20030504210109.W62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <20030505081906.GQ16795@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting f.johan.beisser (jan at caustic.org):

> In general, FreeBSD does what it says it'll do. It's my default
> workstation OS, and by far the one i'm most familiar with. But, it's
> growing in ugly horrible ways, that make it less than ideal for
> something like a firewall, or a server.

I can probably build a filtering router ("firewall") out of any *ix, but
FreeBSD wouldn't normally be my first pick for raw material.  As to
"server", I note that FreeBSD's SMP recently has stopped sucking, in
distinction to the others -- but I suppose it depends on what you're
looking for.

(I personally regard the "server" vs. "workstation" distinction as
mostly a quaint vestige of legacy Microsoft cruft.  The terms most
appropriately refer to task roles, rather than characterising an entire
host.)

-- 
<BLINK>Resize your browser so the following line touches both margins!</BLINK>
                           <HR WIDTH="75%">
                Best Regards, Rick Moen, rick at linuxmafia.com


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Mon May  5 01:32:57 2003
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 01:32:57 -0700
Subject: [buug] Re: Buug digest, Vol 1 #498 - 14 msgs, tired of red hat
In-Reply-To: <3EB5E3AF.2B0A8545@satx.rr.com>
References: <20030505034102.24110.52535.Mailman@weak.org> <3EB5E3AF.2B0A8545@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20030505083257.GR16795@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting luis (lramos3 at satx.rr.com):

[Pinheaded quoting technique quoted without further comment.]

> Once you try FreeBSD, you may very well like it much better than
> Linux.  For example, it's package/ports handling abilities are much
> more advanced than Linux's.

<snicker>  "Just use ports!"
http://www.crackmonkey.org/pipermail/crackmonkey/2003q1/035366.html
http://www.lnx-bbc.org/garticle.html

-- 
Cheers,
Rick Moen                           Fac me cocleario vomere.
rick at linuxmafia.com


From brian at planetshwoop.com  Mon May  5 07:15:00 2003
From: brian at planetshwoop.com (Brian Sobolak)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:15:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030504210109.W62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <20030505003534.GJ16795@linuxmafia.com> 
     <20030504210109.W62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <47829.63.73.213.5.1052144100.squirrel@webmail.psys.org>

f.johan.beisser said:

> In general, FreeBSD does what it says it'll do. It's my default
> workstation OS, and by far the one i'm most familiar with. But, it's
> growing in ugly horrible ways, that make it less than ideal for something
> like a firewall, or a server.
>

Do you see this getting better or worse with 5.0?  Or is 5.0 a large part
of what you don't like?

brian

--
Brian Sobolak
http://www.planetshwoop.com/


From jan at caustic.org  Mon May  5 07:56:54 2003
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 07:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <47829.63.73.213.5.1052144100.squirrel@webmail.psys.org>
Message-ID: <20030505074933.D62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>

On Mon, 5 May 2003, Brian Sobolak wrote:

> Do you see this getting better or worse with 5.0?  Or is 5.0 a large
> part of what you don't like?

i'm not entirely sure if "better" or "worse" would be the right way to
describe it.

i actually look forward to 5.0's first stable release (5.1, or so). but
not for a server.

-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
	"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
	  my sham friends." -- Tom Waits



From brian at planetshwoop.com  Mon May  5 08:47:53 2003
From: brian at planetshwoop.com (Brian Sobolak)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 10:47:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <20030505074933.D62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
References: <47829.63.73.213.5.1052144100.squirrel@webmail.psys.org> 
     <20030505074933.D62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>
Message-ID: <51915.63.73.213.5.1052149673.squirrel@webmail.psys.org>

f.johan.beisser said:

> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Brian Sobolak wrote:
>
>> Do you see this getting better or worse with 5.0?  Or is 5.0 a large
>> part of what you don't like?
>
> i'm not entirely sure if "better" or "worse" would be the right way to
> describe it.
>
> i actually look forward to 5.0's first stable release (5.1, or so). but
> not for a server.

The reason I ask is altruistic, of course - I'm currently running -STABLE
on a headless server.  But I'm going to move it over to an actual
workstation and wondered if I should stick with -STABLE or make the jump
to 5.0.  It isn't critical for me, and won't be my primary workstation, so
a few glitches are more than tolerable.

(Had thought about switching to a linux, but since the X is much more
recent now on -STABLE than it was 2 years ago, I can't be bothered)

brian

--
Brian Sobolak
http://www.planetshwoop.com/


From jan at caustic.org  Mon May  5 09:41:48 2003
From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with
In-Reply-To: <51915.63.73.213.5.1052149673.squirrel@webmail.psys.org>
Message-ID: <20030505093910.T62201-100000@pogo.caustic.org>

On Mon, 5 May 2003, Brian Sobolak wrote:

> The reason I ask is altruistic, of course - I'm currently running
> -STABLE on a headless server.  But I'm going to move it over to an
> actual workstation and wondered if I should stick with -STABLE or make
> the jump to 5.0.  It isn't critical for me, and won't be my primary
> workstation, so a few glitches are more than tolerable.

i would stick with -STABLE for a while yet. the last time i had 5.0 on a
machine (roughly 5 weeks ago) i didn't even have a working mozilla, and
some other applications would fail in odd ways. i'd also have random
kernel panics if i ran anything that'd use kernel calls for updating
(gkrellm, systat, etc) on a frequent basis.

other than those issues, it was generally not to bad.



-------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+
  http://caustic.org/~jan                      jan at caustic.org
	"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for
	  my sham friends." -- Tom Waits



From unixjavabob at yahoo.com  Wed May  7 22:02:23 2003
From: unixjavabob at yahoo.com (Bob Read)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 22:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] swap per process?
Message-ID: <20030508050224.56667.qmail@web13804.mail.yahoo.com>

Does any *nix have a tool that shows swap used per
process?

What if your swap is hammered and you want to
terminate only the offending process...

...maybe some way to read it indirectly, such as via
pagein/out per process?

Thanks,
Bob R



=====
-----------------------------------------
Bob Read
Exit Code Incorporated
cell (510)-703-1634
unixjavabob at yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From unix at theunixman.com  Wed May  7 22:20:16 2003
From: unix at theunixman.com (unix at theunixman.com)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 22:20:16 -0700
Subject: [buug] swap per process?
In-Reply-To: <20030508050224.56667.qmail@web13804.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030508050224.56667.qmail@web13804.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20030508052016.GF16574@isengard.arda.theunixman.com>

On 05/07 22:02, Bob Read wrote:
> Does any *nix have a tool that shows swap used per
> process?

ps works well.  If you subtract the rss (Resident Set Size, in
physical RAM) from the vsize (Virtual Image Size, the total size of
the process), you can get a good idea of the amount of data swapped.

> What if your swap is hammered and you want to
> terminate only the offending process...

killall5 -9 :)

> ...maybe some way to read it indirectly, such as via
> pagein/out per process?

This probably isn't necessary, and probably wouldn't be accurate even
if the counters were available, since a large number of pages are
shared.

-- 
The UNIX Man <evan at theunixman.com>


From desertfox at cableaz.com  Thu May  8 17:25:27 2003
From: desertfox at cableaz.com (Erick Smith)
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 17:25:27 -0700
Subject: [buug] FreeBSD Linux Compatibility problem
Message-ID: <200305081725.28326.desertfox@cableaz.com>

I have a Linux app that's in RPM format that I'd like to install and run using 
FreeBSD's compatability layer.

I'm running into a couple of problems though.

First, the RPM won't unpack unless I turn dependencies and the OS check off.

After the RPM is unpacked, the installation script runs fine.

When I try to run the app though, it checks the OS type and finds FreeBSD 
instead of Linux and refuses to run.  I tried to hack a symlink into the 
Linux file tree so that the app would see Linux when it does it's OS check, 
but then it can't find all the necc. libraries.

What I'd like to know is if there's a way to tell the installed app to use the 
Linux compatability layer, i.e. is there a way to designate an app as a Linux 
app not a FreeBSD app?

Alternatively is there a way I can unpack and install the app that preserves 
the Linux flag so the app automatically knows it's Linux not FreeBSD?

Thanks for any insight.  I have gotten other Linux apps to work under FreeBSD, 
but not from RPM's.  I'm running FreeBSD-5.1-CURRENT

Thanks,

Erick


From psoltani at ultradns.com  Thu May  8 18:09:40 2003
From: psoltani at ultradns.com (Patrick Soltani)
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:09:40 -0700
Subject: [buug] FreeBSD Linux Compatibility problem
Message-ID: <3DBB075EEB95944492E127F2B9A96FAFCF2F32@ultra-exchange.ultradns.com>

This usually works on 4.x, haven't tried 5.x though:

brandelf -t Linux linux-program

Regards,
Patrick Soltani.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Erick Smith [mailto:desertfox at cableaz.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 5:25 PM
>To: buug at weak.org
>Subject: [buug] FreeBSD Linux Compatibility problem
>
>
>I have a Linux app that's in RPM format that I'd like to 
>install and run using 
>FreeBSD's compatability layer.
>
>I'm running into a couple of problems though.
>
>First, the RPM won't unpack unless I turn dependencies and the 
>OS check off.
>
>After the RPM is unpacked, the installation script runs fine.
>
>When I try to run the app though, it checks the OS type and 
>finds FreeBSD 
>instead of Linux and refuses to run.  I tried to hack a 
>symlink into the 
>Linux file tree so that the app would see Linux when it does 
>it's OS check, 
>but then it can't find all the necc. libraries.
>
>What I'd like to know is if there's a way to tell the 
>installed app to use the 
>Linux compatability layer, i.e. is there a way to designate an 
>app as a Linux 
>app not a FreeBSD app?
>
>Alternatively is there a way I can unpack and install the app 
>that preserves 
>the Linux flag so the app automatically knows it's Linux not FreeBSD?
>
>Thanks for any insight.  I have gotten other Linux apps to 
>work under FreeBSD, 
>but not from RPM's.  I'm running FreeBSD-5.1-CURRENT
>
>Thanks,
>
>Erick
>_______________________________________________
>Buug mailing list
>Buug at weak.org
>http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
>



From unixjavabob at yahoo.com  Thu May  8 18:26:52 2003
From: unixjavabob at yahoo.com (Bob Read)
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] FreeBSD Linux Compatibility problem
In-Reply-To: <3DBB075EEB95944492E127F2B9A96FAFCF2F32@ultra-exchange.ultradns.com>
Message-ID: <20030509012652.42682.qmail@web13801.mail.yahoo.com>

> >When I try to run the app though, it checks the OS
> type

What method is the app using to determine the OS type?


=====
-----------------------------------------
Bob Read
Exit Code Incorporated
cell (510)-703-1634
unixjavabob at yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From desertfox at cableaz.com  Fri May  9 01:09:21 2003
From: desertfox at cableaz.com (Erick Smith)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 01:09:21 -0700
Subject: [buug] FreeBSD Linux Compatibility problem
Message-ID: <200305090109.22062.desertfox@cableaz.com>

Bob Read: The method the app was using to determine the OS type is uname.

Patrick Soltani: I tried the exellent suggestion you gave.  I thought I had 
remembered something about elf branding.  Unfortunately, I get ' file is not 
ELF format' error  trying to brand the app itself or the rpm.

I appreciate the pointers and am trying to see if there's anything more I can 
do with elfbrand, but so far no luck.

Thanks,

Erick


From sneakums at zork.net  Fri May  9 02:35:00 2003
From: sneakums at zork.net (Sean Neakums)
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 10:35:00 +0100
Subject: [buug] FreeBSD Linux Compatibility problem
In-Reply-To: <200305090109.22062.desertfox@cableaz.com> (Erick Smith's
 message of "Fri, 9 May 2003 01:09:21 -0700")
References: <200305090109.22062.desertfox@cableaz.com>
Message-ID: <6ud6isbgzf.fsf@zork.zork.net>

Erick Smith <desertfox at cableaz.com> writes:

> Patrick Soltani: I tried the exellent suggestion you gave.  I
> thought I had remembered something about elf branding.
> Unfortunately, I get ' file is not ELF format' error trying to brand
> the app itself or the rpm.

Maybe the file you execute to launch the application is a wrapper script.

-- 
Sean Neakums - <sneakums at zork.net>


From desertfox at cableaz.com  Fri May  9 09:44:13 2003
From: desertfox at cableaz.com (Erick Smith)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:44:13 -0700
Subject: [buug] FreeBSD Linux Compatibility problem
Message-ID: <200305090944.13900.desertfox@cableaz.com>

OK, thanks for all the info.  I received a suggestion from my posting on 
OSNews that has helped the most.  I'm posting it here in case anyone else is 
watching this thread.

What they suggested was to unpack the RPM using:

rpm -i --ignoreos --root /compat/linux --dbpath /var/lib/rpm package

(This comes from the FreeBSD Handbook 22.5 - Installing Oracle)

(It's the --root and --dbpath options that did the trick)

This worked, and my app now knows it's a linux app, but it can't find some 
app-specific libraries.  Now I'm looking up how to set the path variable for 
the linux compatibility layer so that I can tell it where the local libraries 
are.

Thanks for all the help.  I have solved the core problem, the rest should be 
easier.

BTW, I'm not a real big fan of RPM's now :)

Thanks again,

Erick


From unixjavabob at yahoo.com  Tue May 27 13:00:47 2003
From: unixjavabob at yahoo.com (Bob Read)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] wake-on-lan/PXE auto-install questions?
Message-ID: <20030527200047.38777.qmail@web13805.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey buug,
   I'm intrigued by this wake-on-lan/PXE stuff, but
I've never used it.  I just read a bunch of docs and
how-tos.  Before I move forward and set this crap up,
I'd like your opinions:

1)  Anybody set this up?  How did you do it, what
tools did you use (ie Rembo), which OSs did you
auto-install?

2)  Which network bootloader works best (ie
DHCP/PXE/tFTP, pxelinux, etherboot, grub)?

3)  Any problems with different hardware in the
auto-install machine (ie network cards, hard drives,
video)?  How did you cope with different hardware?

Thanks,
Bob



=====
-----------------------------------------
Bob Read
Exit Code Incorporated
cell (510)-703-1634
unixjavabob at yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From atporter at primate.net  Tue May 27 13:37:10 2003
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:37:10 -0700
Subject: [buug] wake-on-lan/PXE auto-install questions?
In-Reply-To: <20030527200047.38777.qmail@web13805.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030527200047.38777.qmail@web13805.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20030527203710.GS10391@primate.net>

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:00:47PM -0700, Bob Read wrote:
> 1)  Anybody set this up?  How did you do it, what
> tools did you use (ie Rembo), which OSs did you
> auto-install?

	Never tried Wake On Lan, but I do PXE all the time. Done net
boot installs of Linux, Solaris and OpenBSD.
 
> 2)  Which network bootloader works best (ie
> DHCP/PXE/tFTP, pxelinux, etherboot, grub)?

	pxelinux + ISC DHCP works great for me. Pretty much limits you to
Intel ethernet cards though.
 
> 3)  Any problems with different hardware in the
> auto-install machine (ie network cards, hard drives,
> video)?  How did you cope with different hardware?

	I mostly use PXE as an install method, then run off the local
drive. If you want to netboot all the time, you can setup different kernel
images, root directories, etc based on MAC address.


From unixjavabob at yahoo.com  Tue May 27 15:12:46 2003
From: unixjavabob at yahoo.com (Bob Read)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [buug] looking for 6-8 foot server rack
Message-ID: <20030527221246.56368.qmail@web13802.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey buug,
   I need a used 6-8 foot 19" server rack ( ~ 42U).
   Anyone know where I could find one?  I've been
looking on ebay and craigslist, I'm wondering if I can
buy one locally and save the ebay shipping charge.

Thanks,
bob 

=====
-----------------------------------------
Bob Read
Exit Code Incorporated
cell (510)-703-1634
unixjavabob at yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From atporter at primate.net  Tue May 27 15:24:18 2003
From: atporter at primate.net (Aaron T Porter)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:24:18 -0700
Subject: [buug] looking for 6-8 foot server rack
In-Reply-To: <20030527221246.56368.qmail@web13802.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030527221246.56368.qmail@web13802.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20030527222418.GT10391@primate.net>

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:12:46PM -0700, Bob Read wrote:

>    I need a used 6-8 foot 19" server rack ( ~ 42U).
>    Anyone know where I could find one?  I've been
> looking on ebay and craigslist, I'm wondering if I can
> buy one locally and save the ebay shipping charge.

	I know Fry's in Palo Alto used to carry them... not sure what the
price was though. The chatsworth.com page lists a few distributors in the
bay area, notably graybar.com (SF, Hayward, San Jose).


From bferrell at baywinds.org  Tue May 27 16:48:11 2003
From: bferrell at baywinds.org (Bruce Ferrell)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:48:11 -0700
Subject: [buug] looking for 6-8 foot server rack
References: <20030527221246.56368.qmail@web13802.mail.yahoo.com> <20030527222418.GT10391@primate.net>
Message-ID: <3ED3F93B.8050708@baywinds.org>

Weird stuff warehouse has 'em cheap

Aaron T Porter wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:12:46PM -0700, Bob Read wrote:
> 
> 
>>   I need a used 6-8 foot 19" server rack ( ~ 42U).
>>   Anyone know where I could find one?  I've been
>>looking on ebay and craigslist, I'm wondering if I can
>>buy one locally and save the ebay shipping charge.
> 
> 
> 	I know Fry's in Palo Alto used to carry them... not sure what the
> price was though. The chatsworth.com page lists a few distributors in the
> bay area, notably graybar.com (SF, Hayward, San Jose).
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
>