Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
DK wrote: Floppy CD mount OK now, however even though the floppy mounts OK, when I mount the floppy, I get: 127# mount -v -t msdos /dev/fd0 /mnt /dev/fd0 on /mnt (msdos, local, reads: sync 2 async 0) floppy: mount -v -t msdos /dev/fd0c /mnt CDROM: mount -t cd9660 /dev/acd0c /cdrom However, I can't seem to unmount them. I get Command not found. 127# unmount /cdrom unmount: Command not found. Greetings! The command to use is umount, not unmount. umount /cdrom Don't ask me why they left out the first 'n' there. -Henrik W Lund ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, DK wrote: I edited rc.conf added the line: amd_enable=YES However, my devices(Floppy CDROM) are not automounting after logging in or starting X ??? In the process view of BSD, I have amd as waiting Trying to understand man amd isn't helping. Any ideas ??? I currently automount 2 CD's, my floppy drive, a Zip drive, and an nfs export from another system, so I think I've got the basics figured out. However, I use amd on a 4.9 system. I think it's generally the same on 5.x, but there may be differences. Anyway, with that caveat, the best current resource that I know of for setting up automounting is http://www.daemonnews.org/200202/automounting.html There are a few more steps than just adding the rc.conf line. You have to tell amd what filesystems / devices to mount, and where to mount them to. These details go in the /etc/amd.conf and /etc/amd.map files, which you'll have to configure - see the amd.conf manpage for details on the former, and the URL above for details on the latter. (Note that while the instructions at this URL work, they can in fact be improved upon with some experimentation.) For more background on automounting with amd, these sites have been useful to me: http://www.nber.org/amd.html http://www.am-utils.org/ -- David Fleck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 04:36:57PM -0700, Henrik W Lund wrote: The command to use is umount, not unmount. umount /cdrom Don't ask me why they left out the first 'n' there. Because typing the sequence u-n-m at speed is really quite difficult. It's also the reason that it's perl and not pearl. Same as it's hard to type t-h-e correctly all teh time, nad typing a-n-d is a bit of a pain too. Anyone would think that the qwerty keyboard layout was designed to slow down your typing speed... Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgpDCNgdlx4im.pgp Description: PGP signature
[OT] QWERTY key layout (was Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???)
Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 04:36:57PM -0700, Henrik W Lund wrote: The command to use is umount, not unmount. umount /cdrom Don't ask me why they left out the first 'n' there. Because typing the sequence u-n-m at speed is really quite difficult. It's also the reason that it's perl and not pearl. Same as it's hard to type t-h-e correctly all teh time, nad typing a-n-d is a bit of a pain too. Anyone would think that the qwerty keyboard layout was designed to slow down your typing speed... I don't remember where, but I read somewhere that the qwerty layout was not designed for raw speed (as some people think) but was designed for speed on _mechanical_ typewriters. i.e. part of it's design is to maximize the possibility that you'll alternate left-hand/right-hand, thus minimizing the possibility that the hammers that fly up and strike the paper won't jam. (probably most of you have never used a truely _manual_ typewriter, and thus don't understand the mechanics ... manual typewriters use hammers, much like a piano, that have the embossed letters on them, and you have to hit the key hard enough to cause the hammer to fly up and strike through the ink ribbon and put the image of the letter on the paper. You also had the possibility that if you tried to type too fast, the next hammer would hit the first hammer as it was on its way down, thus jamming the typewriter and requiring you to stick your hand in the mechanism and unjam it, which meant you probably got ink on your hands ... _unlike_ a piano, all the hammers with the letters on them were angled to strike the ribbon/paper at exactly the same location, thus the possibility of collission was very high.) Anyway ... the fact that the qwerty layout was adopted for electric typerwriters, and later keyboards that don't have the same restrictions as manual typewriters is an unfortunate consequence of let's use something that everyone already knows. It would have been better if the folks who developed the electric typewriter had used the Dvorak layout, but it's unlikely at this point that the world will switch. If you've never seen a mechanical typewriter, it's an interesting history lesson. It will explain a lot about why the keyboards we use today function they way they do. Just wait until you learn how the SHIFT key used to function! ... I wonder if I still have that old cheapo typerwriter in the attic somewhere ... -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] QWERTY key layout (was Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???)
[Bill Moran, 2004-08-01] I don't remember where, but I read somewhere that the qwerty layout was not designed for raw speed (as some people think) but was designed for speed on _mechanical_ typewriters. i.e. part of it's design is to maximize the possibility that you'll alternate left-hand/right-hand, thus minimizing the possibility that the hammers that fly up and strike the paper won't jam. (probably most of you have never used a truely _manual_ typewriter, and thus don't understand the mechanics ... This is probably not true (that most of us have never used one of those, that is.) It's not -that- long, since these were in common use, probably just 20 years. And even though I'm not alot older than that myself, most people my age have seen and played with one of those as a kid. Everyone had one in the attic, if not your parents, at least your grand parent. I can, by the way, confirm what you've read. The qwerty layout -is- indeed designed to make typing slow, in order to minimize the posibility of a jam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
DK wrote: Hi Giorgos, 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) Hey DK, FreeBSD is much more secure then a clean windows system, though i would do the same (since i am very security minded). You can however let your windows2k box route the FreeBSD machine to the internet so that it can obtain the latest revisions of the ports and sourcetree, as described in the handbook. 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. 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. Did you try to execute startxfe4 manually? Is it actually there? isn't it a glitch in a old version (Which you seem to refuse to update since it's not secure) ? check it out ! 3)I am trying to install Apachetoolbox-1.5.70(it may well be a BigApache for BSD :)) - but I get the errors Command not found trying to run it: This is not the proper way to install ports or packages in FreeBSD. Please, refer to the Handbook section on ports and packages for details. [snip irrelevant attempts to force bash to do something mysterious] 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). It's no ports pack, it's a set of scripts, which is not supported by FreeBSD, so when there is an leak, you should find out yourself and update it (instead of enable-ing one tiny little feature of the weekly scripts (400.status-pkg) which gives you an overview of outdated packages) besides that you should install portaudit which daily checks whether your applications are vulnerable to known issues. But that would be your own free choice. 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 ??? Yes that probably means I cannot find the /bin/bash shell, so i cannot handle your request, why? bash is not installed in /bin/bash but in /usr/local/bin/bash, it was displayed when you installed it, you can see it in your password entry, and it is listed in /etc/shells... --- 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 -- -- Kind regards, Remko Lodder |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reporter DSINet|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Projectleader Mostly-Harmless |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, DK wrote: ... then you maybe right Remko, BSD may not be right for me. I think it's becoming clear that it's not. You seem to expect FreeBSD to be 'just like MSWindows, but Better!' - but it's *not* like MSWin, at all. If you keep expecting to install/adminsiter a UNIX-like system in the same way you install/administer a MSWindows system, you will be perpetually frustrated and disappointed, because you will *continually* run into the ways in which FreeBSD is nothing like Windows, and you will *never* use the OS in the way it was designed to be used (because your mind is stuck in Windows-land). If you're seriously interest in *learning* how to use UNIX-like systems, take it slowly and ask lots of specific questions. If you just want to rant, you're really wasting everybody's time. -- David Fleck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
- Original Message - From: DK [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Guillermo_García-Rojas [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 1:36 AM Subject: Re: Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ??? snip Can you live without your Windows 2000 GUI? Can you work without it? Why would I want to... a GUI makes life easier makes my ability to do work more productive :) Not really. Your windows 2k pro doesn't allow for remote administration unless you have pc anywhere running, or it's connected to a domain to allow remote management. If your gui crashes, the box dies. If IE crashes to far, the box will die. No pretty gui for you then. What if some big company ask you to work for them, but they have UNIX systems, are you prepared or can you handle that work? Any OS will take me about 1 week to get up to speed - if its a MS product, about 2 days :) You've been playing with FreeBSD 4.10 for 6 days, and still have issues. You've played with 4.5 in the past also. Yet you still have problems. One more thing, my OpenBSD 3.5 costs me $0, FreeBSD price is $0 too. Did you spend the same amount of money on your Windows 2000?? Yea 0$ - all my software is War... *cough* ... donated You should be used to the problems of not having docs on the software that's donated to your hard drive then. Except in this case, the docs ARE freely available, it would just appear that you decided to not use them and run head long into something you know little to nothing about. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's just like buying a car and not knowing it needs gas. First thing you'd do is blame the car for not running when if you look at the owners manual, it will plainly tell you that fuel is required. Kind Regards, DK __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2004-07-28 22:53, DK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really. But even if we provided examples of this configurability you wouldn't accept them as valid examples because they wouldn't be point and click on some wimpy dialog-based wizard, right? Right I think this is going to be my last post on the topic. There's not much point after this particular answer to discuss anything. Who could have put it better? As the pounding drums sound, Aragorn and Legolas rush to barricade the entrance to the burial chamber. Heavy footfalls sound and the statement is made, with plain disappointment, 'They have a cave troll.' KDK ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
DK wrote:
--- Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of these are available on FreeBSD too (except Mercury Mailserver,
which is just another Win32 MTA that I don't know about but somehow feel
reluctant to trust more than my Sendmail or Postfix installations).
Yes, but not as ONE nice Package:
eg: FreeBSD PORTS
apache+mod_perl-1.3.31
apache+mod_ssl+ipv6-1.3.31+2.8.18_4
I tried to install apache+mod_ssl+ipv6-1.3.31+2.8.18_4 THEN apache+mod_perl-1.3.31
and its messed up!!
Perhaps, in contradiction to Windows (in which you have to press : next
next next okay and your software is installed) you need to 'rtfm'. This
being said think the best way to install it, is using apache+mod_ssl...
as installation base, and then add mod_perl seperatly. Can that be
done? Yes it can be done, and you would have known if you had asked or
read some documentation.
If you want people(Windows user) using BSD on mass for servers etc, develop a
Package that
contains many of the necessary Apache modules:
eg: ONE Package(NOT an array of messy Ports)
It works absolutly fine, i dont think we want one big package for
everything, then it would be like rpm and FreeBSD imo does not want to
follow Redhat and such. Oh and that requires a lot of disks for
installing, Suse anyone? (DVD or six seven CD's?).
ESSENTIAL:
Apache
MySQL
mod_ssl(Contains:OpenSSL)
mod_perl
PHP
OPTIONAL:
IMAP
mod_python
mod_auth_nds
mod_auth_mysql
mod_fastcgi
mod_jk
XML
GD
All possible with the ports...
Why isn't it easy for you to install all these things on FreeBSD?
Which part of the installation troubles you? A recent addition to the
Handbook was a section on Apache. Perhaps, by letting us know what
gives you trouble we can improve the documentation to help you and
anyone else that tries to install an Apache web server from now on.
Being a long time Windows 2000 user a coder in C, C++, Assembler, Perl, PHP I am
making a real
effort to set up a Web Server on the FreeBSD platform.
Good, at least you try/
I can install apache OK. Installing other modules(mod_perl, mod_ssl, php etc...)
with it is a
nightmare...
As said, read the documentation , or learn to search, since if you did
that and installd apache with modssl included. And you would have
searched you would have come across mod_perl and even mod_php, which is
apxs'ed into the apache library stuff and can be used within 'seconds'.
What I have noticed so far about FreeBSD:
FreeBSD is about 5 YEARS behind windows(I would actually say 1990, but people my have
heart
attacks) - apologies to all the hard work put in by BSD contributors!
I think we are in front of windows. We can have multiple users at the
same time, refresh our system without always having to reboot {update
some random pacakge in windows and it requires a reboot}. Besides that
BSD has nice SMP support, and AMD-64 support with working drivers, that
cannot be said from Windows XP 64bit eh?
- with FreeBSD Windows 2000 installed on the SAME computer, the GUI of Windows
2000 is MUCH
faster than any of the BSD window managers(wmaker, FVWM, blackbox, fluxbox, XFCE(STILL
can't start
this from exec, whats the damn command startxfce4 ??? this doesn't work!)... I won't
even comment
on the shitty performance of KDE GNOME - If people say it should be used without a
GUI... they
must be over 40, bald, lonely most love shitty VI - I can EDIT any file faster on a
GUI editor
then any coder I have seen at UNI/WORK who say VI is better...
Well i dont agree on this one either, my gnome starts much faster then
windows and especially fvwm2 is very fast and light. And instead of
ranting on XFCE you can (again) ask how things work, it's not pressing
the next button here either. I think you are 20, full of hair and you
just love notepad. And that's fine, since i am 20, full of hair and i
love vi.. everybody has it's editor... dont rant on that since that's lame..
- No default GUI File Explorer(excluding KDE/GNOME, not that there's is usable) -
had to install
xfe on wmaker(still about as useless as Windows 3.1 File Manager)
/rant
- FreeBSD does NOT Default Mount my CD Floppy(this is ridiculous - even MS DOS
NOT to mention
Windows 3.1[Year 1990... ring a bell] did this!!) - you honestly expect new users to
edit
configuration files so it automounts ?? ... instead of having stuff in the
man/manual/docs about
mounting/unmounting, just automount them as DEFAULT... no need to read the docs...
logical ???
No they did not, you had to enable the driver first before it even got
recognized. Here you have the possibility to mount a floppy and a disk.
And again, the handbook has some information about this afaik/
- 300 Million Users of Windows thinks so ;)) (BTW: I am NOT including KDE/GNOME)
Windows has a larger user base, that's correct.
- No default Find Files GUI - I won't even comment on lack of functionality of Cmd
line
whereis/search/find
In gnome there is a find option that enables you to
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
DK wrote: --- Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of these are available on FreeBSD too (except Mercury Mailserver, which is just another Win32 MTA that I don't know about but somehow feel reluctant to trust more than my Sendmail or Postfix installations). Yes, but not as ONE nice Package: eg: FreeBSD PORTS apache+mod_perl-1.3.31 apache+mod_ssl+ipv6-1.3.31+2.8.18_4 [snip] Hi, You're probably aware of this already, but FreeBSD is developed collaboratively. I'm just a user, and have nothing at all to do with the project. There are a few things called meta-ports which install a load of stuff at once - there's one for installing an *instant workstation*, for example. If anyone had felt the need to produce one for the setup you're describing, or indeed that it would be a sensible thing to do, they would have done it. As a matter of fact, the PHP port has just been made even less like the way you'd like it to be - and for some excellent reasons, I now see. I didn't at first but I was wrong, not the port maintainer. You might step back a moment and reflect that you might be missing some very important points. The arguments you made are based on things that have, after all, been apparent to everyone always. FreeBSD is as it is by design, not negligence or backwardness. FreeBSD might well not be for you. Luckily, we can choose which operating system suits us best. But until you figure out why things are done this way with FreeBSD, and then consider the merits of this approach, you're not going to get anywhere with it. Regards, Peter. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
to set the record straight,
fbsd is not and has never been close to linux
if you want to run an os that will run out of the box then yes by all means
run redhat, but you also get xinetd, and root enabled in ssh. if you do want
to run a semi serious web server then i would build from source,
so i would not complain about ther enot being any ports, lets see you make a
port, or do you know how to setup virtual hosting on a name basis for apache
and postfix, perhaps you can add postfix, clamav, and squirrelmail to your
mush beloved port. come to think of it you might want to add mysql-4.2.0 and
phpnuke to that port.
--
Steve Rieger
ICQ # 5956607
yahoo IM riegersteve
- Original Message -
From: Remko Lodder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: DK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an
installerpackage like this ???
DK wrote:
--- Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of these are available on FreeBSD too (except Mercury Mailserver,
which is just another Win32 MTA that I don't know about but somehow feel
reluctant to trust more than my Sendmail or Postfix installations).
Yes, but not as ONE nice Package:
eg: FreeBSD PORTS
apache+mod_perl-1.3.31
apache+mod_ssl+ipv6-1.3.31+2.8.18_4
I tried to install apache+mod_ssl+ipv6-1.3.31+2.8.18_4 THEN
apache+mod_perl-1.3.31
and its messed up!!
Perhaps, in contradiction to Windows (in which you have to press : next
next next okay and your software is installed) you need to 'rtfm'. This
being said think the best way to install it, is using apache+mod_ssl...
as installation base, and then add mod_perl seperatly. Can that be
done? Yes it can be done, and you would have known if you had asked or
read some documentation.
If you want people(Windows user) using BSD on mass for servers etc,
develop a Package that
contains many of the necessary Apache modules:
eg: ONE Package(NOT an array of messy Ports)
It works absolutly fine, i dont think we want one big package for
everything, then it would be like rpm and FreeBSD imo does not want to
follow Redhat and such. Oh and that requires a lot of disks for
installing, Suse anyone? (DVD or six seven CD's?).
ESSENTIAL:
Apache
MySQL
mod_ssl(Contains:OpenSSL)
mod_perl
PHP
OPTIONAL:
IMAP
mod_python
mod_auth_nds
mod_auth_mysql
mod_fastcgi
mod_jk
XML
GD
All possible with the ports...
Why isn't it easy for you to install all these things on FreeBSD?
Which part of the installation troubles you? A recent addition to the
Handbook was a section on Apache. Perhaps, by letting us know what
gives you trouble we can improve the documentation to help you and
anyone else that tries to install an Apache web server from now on.
Being a long time Windows 2000 user a coder in C, C++, Assembler,
Perl, PHP I am making a real
effort to set up a Web Server on the FreeBSD platform.
Good, at least you try/
I can install apache OK. Installing other modules(mod_perl, mod_ssl, php
etc...) with it is a
nightmare...
As said, read the documentation , or learn to search, since if you did
that and installd apache with modssl included. And you would have
searched you would have come across mod_perl and even mod_php, which is
apxs'ed into the apache library stuff and can be used within 'seconds'.
What I have noticed so far about FreeBSD:
FreeBSD is about 5 YEARS behind windows(I would actually say 1990, but
people my have heart
attacks) - apologies to all the hard work put in by BSD contributors!
I think we are in front of windows. We can have multiple users at the
same time, refresh our system without always having to reboot {update
some random pacakge in windows and it requires a reboot}. Besides that
BSD has nice SMP support, and AMD-64 support with working drivers, that
cannot be said from Windows XP 64bit eh?
- with FreeBSD Windows 2000 installed on the SAME computer, the GUI of
Windows 2000 is MUCH
faster than any of the BSD window managers(wmaker, FVWM, blackbox,
fluxbox, XFCE(STILL can't start
this from exec, whats the damn command startxfce4 ??? this doesn't
work!)... I won't even comment
on the shitty performance of KDE GNOME - If people say it should be
used without a GUI... they
must be over 40, bald, lonely most love shitty VI - I can EDIT any
file faster on a GUI editor
then any coder I have seen at UNI/WORK who say VI is better...
Well i dont agree on this one either, my gnome starts much faster then
windows and especially fvwm2 is very fast and light. And instead of
ranting on XFCE you can (again) ask how things work, it's not pressing
the next button here either. I think you are 20, full of hair and you
just love notepad. And that's fine, since i am 20, full of hair and i
love vi.. everybody has it's editor... dont rant
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
Hi all, I wish BSD had a BigApache installer package, as it would make my life easier... contribution are welcome! http://www.bigapache.org/ The BigApache Enterprise Ready Server is free software: This Package provides a full implementation of Apache and it`s commonly used extension modules for the Win32 plattform Windows 2000 Windows XP This is the base package for BigApache: It includes Apache 2.x mod_ssl OpenSSL mod_perl mod_python mod_jk Mailserver Mercury Additional modules are available in the module distributions and in the BigApache-modules repository. -- Regards, DK __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
What I have noticed so far about FreeBSD: FreeBSD is about 5 YEARS behind windows(I would actually say 1990, but people my have heart attacks) - apologies to all the hard work put in by BSD contributors! - with FreeBSD Windows 2000 installed on the SAME computer, the GUI of Windows 2000 is MUCH faster than any of the BSD window managers(wmaker, FVWM, blackbox, fluxbox, XFCE(STILL can't start this from exec, whats the damn command startxfce4 ??? this doesn't work!)... I won't even comment on the shitty performance of KDE GNOME - If people say it should be used without a GUI... they must be over 40, bald, lonely most love shitty VI - I can EDIT any file faster on a GUI editor then any coder I have seen at UNI/WORK who say VI is better... - No default GUI File Explorer(excluding KDE/GNOME, not that there's is usable) - had to install xfe on wmaker(still about as useless as Windows 3.1 File Manager) - FreeBSD does NOT Default Mount my CD Floppy(this is ridiculous - even MS DOS NOT to mention Windows 3.1[Year 1990... ring a bell] did this!!) - you honestly expect new users to edit configuration files so it automounts ?? ... instead of having stuff in the man/manual/docs about mounting/unmounting, just automount them as DEFAULT... no need to read the docs... logical ??? - 300 Million Users of Windows thinks so ;)) (BTW: I am NOT including KDE/GNOME) - No default Find Files GUI - I won't even comment on lack of functionality of Cmd line whereis/search/find I can tell you that 95% of people who use computers want EASE of USE - This INCLUDES easy installation of the Operating System - This should INCLUDE a default setup that HAS: a Default FAST GUI/File Manager/Find Files/Editor .. this is all that is needed to get a user up going to installing configuring the OS to thier tastes ... did I forget to mention as default AUTOMOUNT !! I cannot tell you the shock disappointment I had in finding out that Windows 2000 runs FASTER than FreeBSD with any GUI/Windows Manager/Desktop Environment ... :((( ...damn I have gone way off track here... sorry for the ranting people... but after 6 days straight of messing around trying to install Apache/MySQL/Mod_Perl/Mod_SSL/PHP.. I am a little tired... 3 days of that was trying to get a basic GUI/File Manager/Find Files/Editor working It must be very tiring and stressful to be a Troll. Perhaps you should consider another occupation... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???
. - Original Message - From: Ed Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ??? snip ...damn I have gone way off track here... sorry for the ranting people... but after 6 days straight of messing around trying to install Apache/MySQL/Mod_Perl/Mod_SSL/PHP.. I am a little tired... 3 days of that was trying to get a basic GUI/File Manager/Find Files/Editor working It must be very tiring and stressful to be a Troll. Perhaps you should consider another occupation... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this wasn't a troll, perhaps he needs to stick with Windows until he has a better understanding of what the difference between workstations and servers really are. -- Micheal Patterson TSG Network Administration 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
