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!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.gtn.com!knobel.gun.de!usenet From: andreas@knobel.gun.de (Andreas Klemm) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,list.freebsd-questions Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 Documentation and Installation of "Everything" to 2.1 Gig drive. Date: 29 May 1996 15:14:45 GMT Lines: 194 Message-ID: <4ohpl5$34j@knobel.gun.de> References: <4nvf5s$eu8@nntp.igs.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: knobel.gun.de X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.6 In-Reply-To: <4nvf5s$eu8@nntp.igs.net> To: "Chris K. Skinner" <cskinner@bml.ca> In article <4nvf5s$eu8@nntp.igs.net>, "Chris K. Skinner" <cskinner@bml.ca> writes: >1. There are configuration files all over the place, each one with a > different name or "file extension" and so on. The system config files in /etc are pretty standard (BSD 4.4). There are only some FreeBSD specific ones. If you mean the config files that are in other places ... well, some public domain program needs their own config file. And every author of a PD program has another idea, how long or short or whatever to call the config files. But since it's free software... don't bother ;) >2. The existing sysinstall facility just gets you started and leaves a > bunch of configuration items incomplete: samba, DNS/named > configuration, NFS client/server software, routed, apache, and > other of the distribution packages. Re-configuration seems not > to take into consideration existing settings and overwrites some > hand-crafted settings with the old, non-functional defaults. Well, I think you mean the ports collection installation mechanism: cd /usr/port/xxx/yyy; make; make install; make clean ;-) Well, other operating systems don't make it so extremely easy for the enduser to compile and install a certain software package. In FreeBSD it is extremely easy to get UNIX pd software compiled and installed. But the task to configure the software is up to you. As a maintainer of 8 packages in the ports collection I can tell you, that it is enough work, to write the Makefile and to make the needed patches and so on ... >1. What is the name of each config file and its location? Well, for most config files you have a manual page. # man filename Most manual pages have a FILE section, where it is described, what other important config files or spool directories belong to the package. Sam for manpages of pd packages. So I recommend you to buy a good Unix Administration book to get the basic work managed and for the many pd packages: Install the package and read the Installation and doc files in the work dir, where the sources reside. >2. Does one edit each config file or is there a config utility > program to manipulate the file? You have to configure each config file. This is an advantage: It's all in ascii, every config file is for a special purpose, you don't have one huge file, that possibly might get scrumbled by installation programs (like in win31 .. win.ini ...) >3. For 2 or more example installation complexity levels, what are the > key elements to understand about the each type of config file > on the system? Give at least a beginner, and an intermediate example. The key element is: a) RTFM before doing anything b) every config file has a certain syntax and Unix is often very picky, if you violate the fix structury (fstab, passwd) >4. What are the differences between X-windows and MS-windows? Like how > do ya start the darned thing? (I had to get an e-mail reply > to tell me that you do a startx command to get going!) I think this is described in the manpage for X. Generally: Copy the sample xinit file (/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xinit/xinitrc (if I remember right) to $HOME/.xinitrc Edit it later, to use your favourity window manager at startup and some clients of your choice. Type 'xini', this will start X11. > Exclude the > obvious user interface operational differences and concentrate on the > setup of the environment and the configuration of a couple of X- > applications such as Netscape 2.02 for BSD. Test your example > setup steps. What steps can be made to bridge any deficiencies > that X-windows might not have over MS-windows like file type > associations, OLE2, TTFonts, DDE, NetDDE, filesharing, icon > files in a program manager or file manager user interface > shell program--I dunno, I'm no expert--other stuff? X11 is X11, there are different window managers, that have all special features: other colors, other buttons, other functionality, ... You are free, to use the one you like the best .... The window manager, that comes with stock X11 is the twm. So, please read the manpage of twm(1) and you'll get enough information ... If you prefer fvwm, like many do, go into the ports collection, install fvwm, read the doco how to fine tune it ... And simply replace the windowmanager twm with fvwm in your .xinitrc file. >5. What are the major configuration choices that have to be made? What > impact will these decisions have on operation of the system at a > later stage (as the disk gets full or other)? Difficult to say, depends on what you want to make with the system. If I were you, I would choose sane defaults at the beginning, and if you are more familiar with Unix, I would recommend to reinstall if necessary. Dependencies: - do you want to run a news server ? - do you want to have a caching and proxy server - how many online user - how big is your amount of RAM and how large are your programs (swap space= - Do you want to have the ports collection in /usr so reserve enough space for /usr/local and the unpacked sources of the largest package you want to compile ... And so on ... you cannot learn all of it within an hour. >I found that I have re-installed the software 5 times now. Each time I >do it, I correct for a bad answer that I gave the first several times. >This might be OK if I had a Pentium Pro 200 MHz with 512 Mbytes Ram and >a 12x speed CD-Rom, but I don't and the process each time takes a couple >of hours to do. The first couple of times no harm was done to the >configuration, but the latter few times cause a bunch of the customized >configuration files and user setups to be stepped-on and overwritten with >the default crap. Well, the first steps are hard in every OS ! >I chose the defaults for the file partitioning/disk labeling process, but it >turned out that the "Everything install" that I did ran out of /var or /tmp >or / root disk file blocks and got a disk full error in the middle of >unpacking distribution apps. I examined which of the items ran out, then >I multiplied the default by 10 to get a bit of head room for the >next install attempt. 30 Mbytes turned into 300 Mbytes. The frigging thing >ought to install its 700 Mbytes into a 2.1 Gig drive that has a 440 Mbyte >Dos partition already setup? You gain experiences more and more ... after the 10th installation you'll be more clever than after the 1st time ;-) Take it with humor. >The sysinstall program is amazing! But maybe it does too much all at once >for configuring the system. Perhaps it should be segmented into a >couple of standard components that call "plug and play"-type scripts >from the application being installed so that each item can not only >be copied to the disk, but configured and maybe test launched >(after some context info is saved to disk if re-booting is required). I'd refuse in this. Unix boxes work in so many different environment, I think nothing can be managed as 'plug & play'. The way sysinstall works now, is quite ok and better then nothing. It doen't do too much to the system, that's ok, the rest of the task is up to the User/Administrator. >Microsoft has steadily improved its installation mechanisms so that >applications are easy to install. INI files and system registration >database file(s) are in the Windows directory and aren't scattered >all over the place. Forget that crap ... How many times did I have to reinstall windows, only because a crap software hosed win,ini or now ... the registry which isn't in the system in ASCII readable form .... And I don't think it's funny, that every program package put's his DLL files into one common directory. It's really bullshit. >Paths to application executables are frequently >not required because the application group/icon/short-cut files >contain the setup context required for each application to be >launched correctly. Now, re-booting/re-starting MS-windows is less >required than it used to be. Settings are re-read and >refresh the existing run-time session. When certain disk drive >mappings change, short-cut files have the changes propagated to them. Well, I think then Win95 is the OS of your choice ;-)) >Some positive things about FreeBSD: aaahh ;-)) >1. When somebody buys the CDs, they seem to get a good lot of > stuff to start out with and for very nearly zero cost! jep. Andreas /// -- andreas@klemm.gtn.com /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ Support Unix -- andreas.klemm@wup.de pgp p-key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html >>> powered by <<< ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz >>> FreeBSD <<<