Re: Securing it properly
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 12:37:12AM -0600, Jacob S. wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:12:32 -0600 David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The apt-get tool, from what little I've seen so far, is quite nice. I didn't find dependencies especially hard to manage in RedHat, though, and apt-get seems to sacrifice the *really really useful* rpm -ql and rpm -qf capabilities (asking for all the files in a package, and asking for what package a file came from). At least I haven't found how to do it yet. dpkg -L package_name - lists the files installed by 'package_name' dpkg -S file_name - lists the package(s) that contain files matching the 'file_name' you entered. man dpkg for some more really helpful tools. It's not part of apt, but still uses Debian's great package management system. You have it backwards. :) dpkg *is* Debian's package management system, and apt uses it to perform all its fundamental package management operations. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing it properly
Jacob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:12:32 -0600 David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The apt-get tool, from what little I've seen so far, is quite nice. I didn't find dependencies especially hard to manage in RedHat, though, and apt-get seems to sacrifice the *really really useful* rpm -ql and rpm -qf capabilities (asking for all the files in a package, and asking for what package a file came from). At least I haven't found how to do it yet. dpkg -L package_name - lists the files installed by 'package_name' dpkg -S file_name - lists the package(s) that contain files matching the 'file_name' you entered. man dpkg for some more really helpful tools. It's not part of apt, but still uses Debian's great package management system. Both dpkg and apt have their own distinct and wonderful uses in my arsenal of tools. Excellent, thanks. I'd been thinking of there being only one tool! oops. As I say, despite having some troubles on the initial learning curve, I'm still favorably inclined and expect to eventually convert my systems to Debian. The fastest way I've found to learn Debian is to install it on your desktop machine and force yourself to use it, instead of resorting to whatever other OS may be installed to dual-boot. :-) I've never actually had any dual-boot system. And I can't seriously consider any of the Unix systems for my desktop; they don't support color management or photoshop. Oops. that's not true, I *could* consider a Mac, which is now a Unix system. But not willing to pay the price in hardware and rebuying all the software. And I can't really throw myself in at the deep end by converting a server without experimenting; too many people and organizations are dependent on these servers (the web server is pushing out more than 2 gigabytes per *day* of stuff). -- David Dyer-Bennet, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing it properly
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:20:20 + Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 12:37:12AM -0600, Jacob S. wrote: snip dpkg -L package_name - lists the files installed by 'package_name' dpkg -S file_name - lists the package(s) that contain files matching the 'file_name' you entered. man dpkg for some more really helpful tools. It's not part of apt, but still uses Debian's great package management system. You have it backwards. :) dpkg *is* Debian's package management system, and apt uses it to perform all its fundamental package management operations. Good point. Thanks for the correction. Jacob - GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135 Are you tired of being a crash test dummy for Microsoft? Discover Linux. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Securing it properly
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 12:37:12AM -0600, Jacob S. wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:12:32 -0600 David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The apt-get tool, from what little I've seen so far, is quite nice. I didn't find dependencies especially hard to manage in RedHat, though, and apt-get seems to sacrifice the *really really useful* rpm -ql and rpm -qf capabilities (asking for all the files in a package, and asking for what package a file came from). At least I haven't found how to do it yet. dpkg -L package_name - lists the files installed by 'package_name' And apt-file list package_name for files in packages _not_ installed dpkg -S file_name - lists the package(s) that contain files matching the 'file_name' you entered. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Securing it properly
Hi all! I'm a former RH user moving to Debian! Better late than never! I have a gazillion questions but i'll settle for this at first. There is a lot of doc out there... Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3 and not 2.0? I thought it was stable. / Henrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing it properly
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote: Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3 and not 2.0? I thought it was stable. If you want to run 2.0 use the package 'apache2'. Because of the many changes between the 1.3 tree and 2.0 of apache, Debian has put apache2 in it's own package. This is good because 1.3 is still being maintained and it doesn't require 1.3 users to upgrade to the different paradigm of 2.0. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RE: Securing it properly
-Original Message- From: Brett Carrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: den 7 februari 2004 21:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Securing it properly On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote: Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3 and not 2.0? I thought it was stable. If you want to run 2.0 use the package 'apache2'. Because of the many changes between the 1.3 tree and 2.0 of apache, Debian has put apache2 in it's own package. This is good because 1.3 is still being maintained and it doesn't require 1.3 users to upgrade to the different paradigm of 2.0. I see! Thx! I just do: apt-get remove apache apt-get install apache2 Right? Is the apt-get command really as good as the doc implies? With dependencies i mean. This was a bugger on rh... A final comment: The install procedure is not half as hard as everyone said! Refreshing actually! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing it properly
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 10:18:42PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote: On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote: I see! Thx! I just do: apt-get remove apache apt-get install apache2 Right? Is the apt-get command really as good as the doc implies? With dependencies i mean. This was a bugger on rh... Yes it is that good. You may want to try using the program aptitude as well. (apt-get install aptitude) and then run either 'aptitude' alone or use it like apt-get (aptitude install apache2). A final comment: The install procedure is not half as hard as everyone said! Refreshing actually! It's refreshing because it's The Right Way(tm). ;) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Securing it properly
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:56:46 -0500 Brett Carrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote: Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3 and not 2.0? I thought it was stable. If you want to run 2.0 use the package 'apache2'. Because of the many changes between the 1.3 tree and 2.0 of apache, Debian has put apache2 in it's own package. This is good because 1.3 is still being maintained and it doesn't require 1.3 users to upgrade to the different paradigm of 2.0. This will not work in Woody. Apache2 is in Unstable and/or Testing, for Debian. As to why it did not make it in to Stable (Woody), a stable release wasn't ready when Woody went into 'feature-freeze'. Jacob - GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135 Have you ever noticed that at trade shows Microsoft is always the one giving away stress balls? pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Securing it properly
On Saturday 07 February 2004 04:54 pm, Jacob S. wrote: This will not work in Woody. Apache2 is in Unstable and/or Testing, for Debian. But the OP could check www.backports.org - it probably has a backport of Apache 2 for Woody. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Securing it properly
-Original Message- From: Jacob S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: den 7 februari 2004 22:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Securing it properly On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:56:46 -0500 Brett Carrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote: Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3 and not 2.0? I thought it was stable. If you want to run 2.0 use the package 'apache2'. Because of the many changes between the 1.3 tree and 2.0 of apache, Debian has put apache2 in it's own package. This is good because 1.3 is still being maintained and it doesn't require 1.3 users to upgrade to the different paradigm of 2.0. This will not work in Woody. Apache2 is in Unstable and/or Testing, for Debian. As to why it did not make it in to Stable (Woody), a stable release wasn't ready when Woody went into 'feature-freeze'. Jacob Ok, do you know the time frame for stable release of 2.0? I can settle for 1.3 but i really like the new features in 2.0. Henrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing it properly
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:11:01 +0100 Henrik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Ok, do you know the time frame for stable release of 2.0? I can settle for 1.3 but i really like the new features in 2.0. Henrik As you said before, I believe 2.0 is now a stable release. It just wasn't at the time Woody was released. Apache 2.0 should be included in the next Stable release of Debian. The next stable release of Debian will come when the developers think all of it's packages are ready. HTH, Jacob - GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135 Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted before the changes will take effect. Reboot now? [OK] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Securing it properly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please do not hijack threads. Post a new thread instead of replying to another one to start a new topic. On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Henrik Johansson wrote: Why is the standard webserver Apache 1.3 and not 2.0? I thought it was stable. PHP doesn't work on it yet, and it's not made it down to stable. Stable is just that: Rock solid. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAJaLSUzgNqloQMwcRAjFDAKDVHqTw7sDHDUCVICvFPHkS8Fa7sgCggQCl EUFZRWHZ16L+RC4s6jrI2Yo= =Ib3e -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing it properly
Henrik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A final comment: The install procedure is not half as hard as everyone said! Refreshing actually! Glad you found it that way. Personally, my experience has been less than good. (I'm still experimenting, and am by no means ready to give up yet.) I've run Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, and Red Hat since 4.2 I think, and am now seriously considering moving to Debian; it seems to be the local favorite among serious users. I'm running two internet servers, not a desktop workstation. So far, I've had three complete failures to get Debian to install, on two different systems (both of which installed fine with RedHat 7.3). On my third try on the second system, I've gotten an apparent install, except that it won't boot from the hard drive. Since I've got a rescue disk and a boot disk, and even a theory on what the problem is, I actually expect to get over this hurdle the next time I have time to work on it, maybe this weekend yet. The installation programs seem to be *very much* not ready for prime time, and the documentation is horrid; containing little useful information and none of the most important thing to document, namely the overall framework of how things *work* (which I need to know to debug anything that goes wrong). One thing that's helped a lot is falling back to stable. At least the documentation isn't outright *wrong* so often there. However, stable contains rather outdated things like perl 5.6.1; which is now old enough that the perl community is starting to tell me that the first thing I need to do is get to a more recent perl when I have trouble with things. The apt-get tool, from what little I've seen so far, is quite nice. I didn't find dependencies especially hard to manage in RedHat, though, and apt-get seems to sacrifice the *really really useful* rpm -ql and rpm -qf capabilities (asking for all the files in a package, and asking for what package a file came from). At least I haven't found how to do it yet. The layers of sources is *really good* design, and will make my life easier, and use less net bandwidth, and generally be a very good thing. As I say, despite having some troubles on the initial learning curve, I'm still favorably inclined and expect to eventually convert my systems to Debian. -- David Dyer-Bennet, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing it properly
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:12:32 -0600 David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henrik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A final comment: The install procedure is not half as hard as everyone said! Refreshing actually! Glad you found it that way. Personally, my experience has been less than good. (I'm still experimenting, and am by no means ready to give up yet.) Sorry to hear you're having trouble getting it setup to work with your hardware. I came to Debian straight from playing with Mandrake (7.1 7.2, I think) and have loved it ever since. snip The apt-get tool, from what little I've seen so far, is quite nice. I didn't find dependencies especially hard to manage in RedHat, though, and apt-get seems to sacrifice the *really really useful* rpm -ql and rpm -qf capabilities (asking for all the files in a package, and asking for what package a file came from). At least I haven't found how to do it yet. dpkg -L package_name - lists the files installed by 'package_name' dpkg -S file_name - lists the package(s) that contain files matching the 'file_name' you entered. man dpkg for some more really helpful tools. It's not part of apt, but still uses Debian's great package management system. Both dpkg and apt have their own distinct and wonderful uses in my arsenal of tools. The layers of sources is *really good* design, and will make my life easier, and use less net bandwidth, and generally be a very good thing. As I say, despite having some troubles on the initial learning curve, I'm still favorably inclined and expect to eventually convert my systems to Debian. The fastest way I've found to learn Debian is to install it on your desktop machine and force yourself to use it, instead of resorting to whatever other OS may be installed to dual-boot. :-) HTH HAND, Jacob - GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135 Double your disk space - delete Windows! http://www.linux.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
