Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!inquo!bofh.dot!vyzynz!bofh.dot!newsfeed.concentric.net!cdc2.cdc.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!nntp.igs.net!usenet From: cskinner@bml.ca (Chris K. Skinner) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,list.freebsd-questions,local.freebsd.questions Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 Documentation and Installation of "Everything" to 2.1 Gig drive. Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 02:32:21 GMT Organization: Bytown Marine Limited, Nepean/Kanata, Ont, Canada Lines: 118 Message-ID: <4ob4en$6a4@nntp.igs.net> References: <4o7j45$ntr@zip0.zipnet.net> <4o7k3m$oa9@zip0.zipnet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ttya3f.ott.igs.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Doug, You have identified many new avenues for me to investigate. The learning curve has steepend again, back into a shear rock-face cliff. My next efforts will be to config the partially working httpd/apache www server so that it serves up Dos sourced .htm files rather than just .html plus some other rough edges also therein. Then some more work on named/DNS/bind. Then samba. Then NFS/NIS. Then X-windows some more. Boy, it's a hard life. Regards, Chris K. Skinner. At 11:14 AM 5/24/96 -0400, "Doug Santry" <dsantry@on.bell.ca> wrote: >>1. There are configuration files all over the place, each one with a >> different name or "file extension" and so on. >Don't know what you mean by "file extension" but most of what you need is under >/etc >> to take into consideration existing settings and overwrites some >> hand-crafted settings with the old, non-functional defaults. >Well, good advice for a new guy is *before* changing a config file, copy it >from xxx to xxx.dist, then edit xxx and copy is to xxx.current, this does >two things for you, if you fucked it up, restore the xxx.dist, if xxx gets >trashed, you can restore xxx.current, since new people are ussaully curious >and edit everything in sight, it will save you some pain. >>3. X-windows: wow--it's quite a bit different than Win3.1x or Win95! >Yup, X is far more powerful...and different. >>1. What is the name of each config file and its location? >sort of silly >>2. Does one edit each config file or is there a config utility >> program to manipulate the file? >case by case basis. good example is /etc/passwd, you can edit it or use the >adduser facility. >> obvious user interface operational differences and concentrate on the >have to since X is simply an API and server, the GUI behaviour depends >greatly on the window manager you are using, OpenWindows is *very* different >from Motif which is very different from twm which is very different... >X is a windows server, *not* a window manager. >> setup steps. What steps can be made to bridge any deficiencies >> that X-windows might not have over MS-windows like file type >Actually, just cuz you don't know how to use it, doesn't mean they are >(X) is inferior to Windows. But you'll learn! >> associations, OLE2, TTFonts, DDE, NetDDE, filesharing, icon >file type associations, actually os2 has that, windows does it only at an >application level, X does the same thing, there are applications for X similar >to your "file manager". OLE2 is inferior to CORBA, who cares about TTFonts, >X has DDE and NetDDE, filesharing??? what do you mean here? Unix and X wins >this one hands down no matter how I interpret this >> files in a program manager or file manager user interface >> shell program--I dunno, I'm no expert--other stuff? >There is a freeware file manager-esqu app for X, but you see, Unix is a >different "culture" than windows. It is more command line oriented cuz we >like it that way. 99% of Unix folks use X to simply have command line windows >side by side, not flashy GUI things. We hate Bob and all the other crap >that MS puts out. There is nothing wrong with it, Unix is just different. >For instance, mainframe MIS folks have a different "culture" as well. If >we wanted X to look and behave like windows, we would have done it a long >time ago, you'll find most of the people use Linux and FreeBSD *hate* MS >and everything they make. Unix will never be "easy" to use nor look and act >like windows. We don't want it to. FreeBSD and Linux are for "power users" >who are rebelling against AOL, MS and the rest of the trendy computer crap >out there. So there is a "culture shift" associated with using these free >Unixes. You will also find they are vert friendly and will bend over >backwards to help get you running... >>or / root disk file blocks and got a disk full error in the middle of >When is askes you how you want to slice your partition, make only 2 slices, >multiply the amount of RAM you have by 2, make this your swap, and the rest >of your disk stick it under /, then /var and /use will go under / automatically >and you won't have that problem anymore. >>In an effort to make the learning curve less trial and error, >>I've purchased the "Linux Network Administrator's Guide" from >You are not admining a 'net', you are admining a node, grab the nutshell >book "Essential System administration"(O'Reilly & Assc) and also check out >some syadmin web sites. >>A question for Walnut Creek support: what's the 2nd BSD 2.1 >>CD-Rom for; I've looked at it but it seems to have similar stuff >>on it as the first one? >Nope, the first is labelled "installation disc" and the second one should >be "live filesystem". The first has all the packages/ports on it and all >tools for installation. The second one is what a installed system looks >like. It is the complete file tree for an installed system which comes >in handy sometimes! Like when you trash a binary by accident like /bin/ls >or something. Instead of reinstalling the system, just mount the cdrom and >copy /cdrom/bin/ls to /bin/ls, it also has the source code, so you can grab >an individual piece of it instead of installing wonking great chunks of it >at install time. >DJS >dsantry@maccs.dcss.mcmaster