On 2004-08-01 20:33, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You have lots of old (out of date) packages installed. Have you > > gotten your FreeBSD workstation to connect to the network yet? If > > yes, you can install `portupgrade' and use it to update all your > > packages/ports to their latest versions. > > I don't feel safe yet connecting my unsecured box to the net with > the 5-10 hits a minute my W2000 box recieves on my broadband link. I > have read the security section of the manual & would like to get > basics working before I rebuild the kernel to install the > firewall(which doesn't seem that easy but I will give it try)
The average FreeBSD system is vastly more secure than Windows workstations even without a firewall. You shouldn't worry too much about those Windows viruses trying to connect to your workstation, since they expect to find Windows-specific services/programs and will most certainly fail miserably when they hit a BSD machine. Bearing this in mind you might, of course, find it a bit more reassuring to run a firewall like IPFW. But this doesn't *require* a kernel recompile. You can simply load the ipfw.ko module with kldload(8) and immediatelly start setting up the rules of your firewall ruleset. As root, you can load the ipfw module by: # kldload ipfw The default set of firewall packet inspection rules that ipfw loads will block *EVERYTHING* so you might want to do a bit of research on the available rulesets by reading about rc.firewall, rc.conf and/or browse the contents of the /etc/defaults/rc.conf file: # man rc.firewall # man rc.conf # more /etc/defaults/rc.conf For details about the way the rules can be written, the ipfw manpage can provide useful information. # man ipfw Browsing the archives of this list for discussions about IPFW rulesets is also a good idea as a lot of people have posted questions on this topic and have received many helpful answers from knowledgeable list members. > > This is probably not why xfce doesn't work though. The > > sysutils/xfce4-utils package installs a command called "startxfce4". > > AFAIK, this is the program that fires up xfce. When you install that > > package (as part of the dependency list of xfce4) you should be able to > > use xfce4 as your desktop by editing your ~/.xinitrc file and making > > sure that the last command it runs is: > > > > exec startxfce4 > > my .xinitrc file contains only the one line: > ---------- > exec startxfce4 > ---------- > > & it still won't start. Does the program `startxfce4' even exist on your system? As I mentioned, it's part of the sysutils/xfce4-utils package, so if you didn't install that package you won't have it. > As I can't get it to start, I just delete this line using VI(I am getting > better :) & replace it with "exec wmaker" which starts OK. Heh. Cool :) I prefer Emacs most of the time, but that's clearly a matter of personal taste so it doesn't matter so much. > Apachetoolbox is not an official freeBSD port/package (www.apachetoolbox.com). > Its a script/ports pack that you run which creates all the scripts needed > to install a large array of Apache & other www stuff(eg. MySQL etc). > > The install file that comes with it says to install it by running > install.sh. > > It says(further down) that "BSD users, the script interpreter of > install.sh is BASH (/bin/bash). - Thats why I started BASH - Do you know > what the "bad interpreter" error means ??? > > ----------------------- > bash-2.05# ./install > bash: ./install: No such file or directory > bash-2.05# ./install.sh > bash: ./install.sh: bad interpreter: No such file or directory > bash-2.05# ./install > bash: ./install: No such file or directory > ---------------------- The "bad intepreter" error means that the `install.sh' script (most likely) starts with a line like this: #!/bin/bash This is a special, somewhat "magic" line that, when present at the start of an executable file, instructs the UNIX kernel to fire up the program following "#!" and pass the rest of the script as input to this program. The program is then responsible to "interpret" the script as it sees fit. In this case, the program /bin/bash does not exist, because on FreeBSD bash is installed as /usr/local/bin/bash and not in /bin. The author of this program is most likely a Linux fan and has become accustomed to the Linuxism of expecting that bash is always in /bin :-) Edit `install.sh' and replace `/bin/bash' with `/usr/local/bin/bash' if you have bash installed. As the author of the package has noted below if you don't have bash and the script doesn't use some feature that is bash-specific, you might get away with /bin/sh instead of /bin/bash but this depends on the way the install script is written. > ****************************************************************************** > Solaris/BSD users, the script interpreter of install.sh is BASH (/bin/bash). > Bash should be used, YMMV if you change it to /bin/sh. The next major > release (2.x) will be in perl. If your willing to help port it please > get a hold of me. Cheers, Giorgos _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"