Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- Mark Jayson Alvarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just curious: what version of Windows 2000 and/or
> Partition Magic are you using? Because in my case
> partition magic 8 didn't allow it to install itself in
> Windows 2000 server.


For Windows 2000 Server/Advanced Server - You will need "Server
Magic"(Partition Magic for Servers).


Kind Regards,

DK



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 
___
[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 installer package like this ???

[epilogue]

 
> & it still won't start.
> As I can't get it to start, I just delete this line using VI(I am getting
> better :) 

vi isn't the easiest program to learn and master, but it is available on
pretty much every *nix system in the universe, so time invested is
generally well rewarded not only by gains in productivity, but also by
portability of your skills.

this said, and because i'm convinced that you've given the handbook only
the most cursory of glances (such a good document - shame on you), i
thought it would be worth pointing out that freebsd comes with another
editor in it's base system - ee.  if you're only going to be doing minor
edits here and there, you might consider checking it out.  its learning
curve is not nearly 1/10th as steep as vi's, but then, neither is it nearly
1/10th as powerful.

2 cents.  epi out.

___
[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 installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- 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 You have lots of old (out of date) packages installed.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.

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)

 
> 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.



> > 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).

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
--


Apachetoolbox Install File(install.txt)
--
Install
=-=-=-=

1) as root run ./install.sh
 1a) if you're running the program for the 2nd time and don't want
to change your options use the -f or --fast switch when running
install.sh .
2) select what you want to compile into apache
 2a) type "apache" to get to the apache menu as shown in the menu
 2b) type "php" to get to the php menu as shown in the menu
 2c) type "page2" to get to the 2nd modules menu as shown in the menu
3) continue and let it compile by typing 'go'
 3a) if the source is missing it will try to download it
4) cd into the apache_1.3.* source directory
5) run "make" manually to compile apache, watch for errors
6) if everything went ok run "make install" to install/upgrade

**
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.
**
Frontpage 2002 Extentions require precompiled binaries.  So only linux,
freebsd, solaris (sparc and x86) are supported.  The binaries are about 10megs
compressed and only the linux tarball will be added to the script+sources
tarball. http://www.apachetoolbox.com for support and updates.
--



Kind Regards,

DK



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
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]"

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2004-08-01 04:48, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ???

You have to tell amd what devices to automount and where by creating a
proper amd.conf file.  See the amd.conf(5) manual page:

$ man 5 amd.conf

> 1) Trying to search for a file I get the error:
>
> 127# locate mysql
> locate: database too small: /var/db/locate.database

Your 'locate' database is out of date or is empty.  Try logging in as
root and manually firing up the script that periodically updates it:

# /etc/periodic/weekly/310.locate

Then you'll be able to use "locate" as expected.  This should have
already run if you kept your machine up at least a week, but you
probably haven't so run it manually ;-)

> 2) I deleted the installed package xfce4, then added it again but xfce4 still
> won't start. Is the warnings(about versions) given when I add the
> package(below) a cause of why it won't start ???
>
> 127# pkg_add xfce4-wm-4.0.5.tgz
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'jpeg-6b_3', but 'jpeg-6b_2' is 
> installed
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'python-2.3.4', but 
> 'python-2.3.3_5' is installed
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'png-1.2.5_5', but 'png-1.2.5_3' 
> is installed
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'glib-2.4.2', but 'glib-2.4.0' 
> is installed
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'shared-mime-info-0.14_3', but 
> 'shared-mime-info-0.14_2' is installed
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'pango-1.4.0_1', but 
> 'pango-1.4.0' is installed
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'gtk-2.4.3_1', but 'gtk-2.4.0' 
> is installed
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'startup-notification-0.7', but 
> 'startup-notification-0.6' is installed

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.

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

If the .xinitrc script already contains other 'exec' commands, for
instance to start Windowmaker, like this one:

$ cat -n .xinitrc | tail -2
49
50  exec wmaker

you might want to comment out or delete those to make sure they don't
stop startxfce4 from running.

> 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:
>
> 127# pwd
> /usr/ports/distfiles/Apachetoolbox-1.5.70
> 127# ls
> CHANGE  MIRROR  bin etc src
> INSTALL README  contrib install.sh
> 127# ./install. sh
> ./install.: Command not found.
> 127# ./install sh
> ./install: Command not found.
> 127# ./install
> ./install: Command not found.

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]
>
> Any ideas to these 3 last problems ???

Yes, read the Handbook for instructions on installing ports/packages :/

- Giorgos

___
[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 installer package like this ???

[Matthew Seaman]

On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 06:32:57AM -0700, Joshua Tinnin wrote:

> However, if you still want to use packages instead of source, I'm pretty sure 
> if you use the -r flag with pkg_add it will auto-fetch-and-install the 
> dependencies you need, as -r signifies to fetch the package remotely - i.e., 
> pkg_add -r xfce4 (I just tried this with another package, and it installed 
> the dependencies for it).

pkg_add -r will install any dependencies that are missing, but it
won't upgrade any earlier versions of dependencies it finds already
installed.

For that, use 'portupgrade -PPNa' (which, despite the program name,
only operated on packages with that combination of flags) -- but make
sure you download a freshly build /usr/ports/INDEX file, or
portupgrade won't know what the latest versions of things are.  Of
course, you'll have to 'pkg_add -r portupgrade' to install portupgrade
the first time.

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


pgphETex7BGE0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Mark Jayson Alvarez]

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  ???
> 
You can also edit /etc/fstab and then add whatever
device you want to automount at startup. Its already
self explanatory. Under the Options tab is where you
would specify if the device should be: ro->read only,
rw->readwrite. By default, all devices that are listed
there are automounted into their corresponding mount
point at startup. You will notice that your cdrom
contains "noauto" in options tab, so that it won't be
automounted at startup. Just erase that "noauto" thing
ok?? As I've said its all self explanatory, if you
find any more trouble with that, do a "man fstab"

BTW: automount requires something to mount, so if you
delete the "noauto" options of you cdrom, in
/etc/fstab, you should always put something inside
your cdrom... perhaps a cd... i guess.=)

> I have some other problems as well:
> 
> 1) Trying to search for a file I get the error:
> 
> 127# locate mysql
> locate: database too small: /var/db/locate.database

Try "find /usr/../anypathwilldo -name "anystring" -ls

> 2) I deleted the installed package xfce4, then added
> it again but xfce4 still
> won't start. Is the warnings(about versions) given

In some cases of installing through packages,
dependency version is an issue, in some cases, its
not. Why not try it on your self.. Collect the proper
version and then run it again. I've been through a lot
of this scenarios.

> trying to run it:

> 127# ./install. sh
> ./install.: Command not found.
> 127# ./install sh
> ./install: Command not found.
> 127# ./install 
> ./install: Command not found.
<--chomp-->


What the!??!>#$=) 
Sir... the script file is "install.sh" you should
run.. "sh install.sh" or "./install.sh". You should
not separate sh from install like what you did.

Two useful tips with regards to file and filenames in
Unix world.. 

1. They are CASE sensitive. You should type exactly as
it is written.
2. Extensions are just "decorations" unlike in Windows
where executables end in .exe
In Unix, it doesn't matter how its filename is
written.

I remember way back in March of this year, the first
time I ever installed FreeBSD in my pc, I was also
asking most of the questions you've been asking in
this list. I have even asked this very dumb question:
"Who Am I mailing to??" and received so much soul-
uplifting reponses, mostly from the names that have
been replying to you lately.. 

The moral of the story:
No question is the "most dumb" or the "most stupid" if
you will just ask it in also a "most polite"or "most
down-to-earth" manner.

I've been reading all of your "rants" lately and just
kept quiet because I know that those names that have
been replying to you where the kindest, most
experienced, most humble persons in this list. I just
couldn't imagine how did they ever ran out of their
patience and have treated you such a "troll".=)

Goodluck sir!!


==
Mark Jayson Alvarez
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
2000-2004






__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
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]"

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Bill Moran]

Joshua Tinnin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > 2) I deleted the installed package xfce4, then added it again but xfce4
> > still won't start. Is the warnings(about versions) given when I add the
> > package(below) a cause of why it won't start ???
> >
> > 127# pkg_add xfce4-wm-4.0.5.tgz
> > pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'jpeg-6b_3', but
> > 'jpeg-6b_2' is installed
> 
> 
> 
> You need to upgrade the dependencies, as the ones you have are out of date. 
> AFAIK pkg_add is supposed to take care of dependencies, but I almost never 
> use it, prefering to build from source using the ports collection: 
> # cd /usr/ports/x11-wm/xfce4 && make install clean
> 
> However, if you still want to use packages instead of source, I'm pretty sure 
> if you use the -r flag with pkg_add it will auto-fetch-and-install the 
> dependencies you need, as -r signifies to fetch the package remotely - i.e., 
> pkg_add -r xfce4 (I just tried this with another package, and it installed 
> the dependencies for it).

Look also at portupgrade, which can be used to upgrade jpeg-6b_2 to jpeg-6b_3.

It's a seperate package right now, but it'll probably be part of the base
system soon.

-- 
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: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Joshua Tinnin]

On Sunday 01 August 2004 06:32 am, Joshua Tinnin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> On Sunday 01 August 2004 04:48 am, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>
> I'm not sure about your automount and Apache problems, but I can help with
> the others ...
>
> > 1) Trying to search for a file I get the error:
> >
> > 127# locate mysql
> > locate: database too small: /var/db/locate.database
>
> This is because the locate db is built from a weekly cron job, which
> probably hasn't run yet on your new install. You can run this manually if
> you want: # sh /usr/src/etc/periodic/weekly/310.locate

Whoops! Sorry, that points to the source and won't work. You should do this 
instead:

# sh /etc/periodic/weekly/310.locate

- jt
___
[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 installer package like this ???

[Joshua Tinnin]

On Sunday 01 August 2004 04:48 am, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I'm not sure about your automount and Apache problems, but I can help with the 
others ...

> 1) Trying to search for a file I get the error:
>
> 127# locate mysql
> locate: database too small: /var/db/locate.database

This is because the locate db is built from a weekly cron job, which probably 
hasn't run yet on your new install. You can run this manually if you want:
# sh /usr/src/etc/periodic/weekly/310.locate

> 2) I deleted the installed package xfce4, then added it again but xfce4
> still won't start. Is the warnings(about versions) given when I add the
> package(below) a cause of why it won't start ???
>
> 127# pkg_add xfce4-wm-4.0.5.tgz
> pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'jpeg-6b_3', but
> 'jpeg-6b_2' is installed



You need to upgrade the dependencies, as the ones you have are out of date. 
AFAIK pkg_add is supposed to take care of dependencies, but I almost never 
use it, prefering to build from source using the ports collection: 
# cd /usr/ports/x11-wm/xfce4 && make install clean

However, if you still want to use packages instead of source, I'm pretty sure 
if you use the -r flag with pkg_add it will auto-fetch-and-install the 
dependencies you need, as -r signifies to fetch the package remotely - i.e., 
pkg_add -r xfce4 (I just tried this with another package, and it installed 
the dependencies for it).

- jt
___
[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 installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh come on, I consider autorunning of removable media a security risk.  You
> like it and try to present the opposite behavior as a fault.  I don't think
> there is any case we can agree on this point.  The best we can do about it
> is help you install amd, the automounter daemon and let us all live in peace
> :P

Hi Giorgos,

I understand your point & why MS have autorun on by default. Because a lot of
newbies to Windows don't even know what/where setup.exe is to start a program.
So to make it easier to install Office after Windows has been installed, AR is
on by default. I agree with you though, autorun(NOT automount) IS a security
risk & I have have it disabled.



> > > Is it so hard to edit a text file like rc.conf and add a simple line
> > > like this?
> > >
> > > amd_enable="YES"

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 have some other problems as well:

1) Trying to search for a file I get the error:

127# locate mysql
locate: database too small: /var/db/locate.database



2) I deleted the installed package xfce4, then added it again but xfce4 still
won't start. Is the warnings(about versions) given when I add the
package(below) a cause of why it won't start ???

127# pkg_add xfce4-wm-4.0.5.tgz
pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'jpeg-6b_3', but
'jpeg-6b_2' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'python-2.3.4', but
'python-2.3.3_5' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'png-1.2.5_5', but
'png-1.2.5_3' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'glib-2.4.2', but
'glib-2.4.0' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'shared-mime-info-0.14_3',
but 'shared-mime-info-0.14_2' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'pango-1.4.0_1', but
'pango-1.4.0' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'gtk-2.4.3_1', but
'gtk-2.4.0' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xfce4-wm-4.0.5' requires 'startup-notification-0.7',
but 'startup-notification-0.6' is installed



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:

127# pwd
/usr/ports/distfiles/Apachetoolbox-1.5.70
127# ls
CHANGE  MIRROR  bin etc src
INSTALL README  contrib install.sh
127# ./install. sh
./install.: Command not found.
127# ./install sh
./install: Command not found.
127# ./install 
./install: Command not found.


then I tried using bash after reading:
Install
=-=-=-=
1) as root run ./install.sh
**
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.
**



127# bash
bash-2.05# pwd
/usr/ports/distfiles/Apachetoolbox-1.5.70
bash-2.05# ls
CHANGE  MIRROR  bin etc src
INSTALL README  contrib install.sh
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



Any ideas to these 3 last problems ???


Kind Regards,

DK




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
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]"

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should really try TkDesk one of these days.  It's my all times
> favorite from the x11-fm category! ;-)

thanks, will try it tonight.
 

> You have to be VERY careful when reading the instructions.  There is no
> "groupadd" command on FreeBSD.  There is a "pw" command though, which
> accepts a "groupadd" option to add new user groups.  The full command
> would be then:
> 
>   # pw groupadd mysql

that worked, thanks.


 
> > Raw numbers no... just sitting in front of the BSD screen counting the
> > seconds.. wondering how people use this OS - then I do a reboot &
> > select WIN2000 & can't believe the difference.  If you want, when I
> > have time, I could take an mpg of it & upload it for all ??
> 
> An mpg of FreeBSD running?  Hmmm, I'd be interested to know exactly HOW
> you'd do that.  You're not complaining about the apparent slowness of
> FreeBSD by running it under VMWare or something similar, right?

VM no. Just a hand held digital Video Camera showing the running of both OS on
the same box.



> I haven't tried setting it up yet, so I'm not the best person to ask for
> instructions but I might find the time to tinker with it this weekend.
> 
> Amazingly similar look to Windows XP though ;-)

Let me know if you get this one installed ok.



> > I can mount my Floppy when I run gluggy KDE, but under Wmaker, I type:
> > mount -v -t msdos /dev/fd0c /mnt
> > ... and this says its mounted
> 
> Try changing the current directory to /mnt and see what files are in
> that directory.  Are they the floppy contents?

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.



> > When I run partition magic in Win2000, its says that I have a BAD
> > partition. Doing some searching, found that BSD messes up something
> > with the sizes of the geometry of the selected partitions(slices) -
> > still don't know how to fix this ???
> 
> Don't "fix" anything.  It's more likely that just Partition Magic that
> is brain-damaged and cannot read the BSD partition properly.

No, partition magic can read the BSD partition correctly. PM is saying the
whole primary parition(both Windows 2000 + FBSD) is BAD(nothing to do with
surface errors)

I can't remember where I read it(BSD site or book, will look later) but when
you make the slices, the sizes must add up to a certain divisable number,
otherwise part of the partition(small number like 1024kb) will be unusable.
Thats why PM is saying that the whole partition is BAD. But I don't know how to
fix this ???



Kind Regards,

DK



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
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]"

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Vulpes Velox]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> .. I know its hard for people to swallow, but MS Windows IS easier
> to use than BSD/Linux/OSX ... thats WHY its the most widely used
> regardless of marketing/costs etc ...

Depends on what you mean easy to use... if you by easy you mean lack
of proper file manipulation tools, no easy to use package or ports
system, search tools, easy to swap out window manager, and ect I guess
so.

> Gnome starts faster than Windows ?? Start time is not important - I
> am talking about reaction time of the GUI - Menu's apearing, moving
> icons, applications appearing etc - Working with Fedora at Uni(Yes,
> I am doing a Masters) the other day, its on a 50 Node Cluster - Its
> running on systems faster than what I have at home(above), yet feels
> like its as gluggy as Windows 95! - nice one Linux

Gnome does more than windows.

BTW the speed in that case can most likely not be attributed to linux.
Most likely it is not running with the defualt gnome settings and in
some cases even safe or sane settings for compile options.
 
> As for XFCE, how do you start it from the .xinitrc
> The XFCE Homepage site says "exec startxfce4" - but that didn't work
> for me ??

Works here.

> Whats the purpose of having to manually set the system to automount
> ?? as opposed to having it as a system install default ?? if there
> is an advantage, I am sure its for the 0.01% of the user base
 
Yes, it is a default installs should under no circumstances decide
what users want to do with there systems.

If you want to create a second freebsd distros that includes amd
running and configed by defualt, feel free to.

I personally find it rather bloody nice, rather than having to deal
with some stupid program guessing where I want it mount.

It is bloody annoying in multiuser enviroments.
 
> > > - 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 find files.
> > And then 
> >   there is find, which can do a lot more then you probably think
> >   now.
> 
> 
> - sorry, I wasn't clear above - For the lack of a GUI Find Files
> option, I meant the default install or with Window Managers(wmaker),
> not the Desktop Environments like KDE/Gnome(which are also fast...
> NOT) - which I don't use as they are slow

Guis to find files exist. Check the ports.

/me has one hotkeyed to mod4+f

BTW you are aware that the defualt configs for KDE and Gnome suck? If
you want to complain about them, you have the wrong list.

> > > I can tell you that 95% of people who use computers want "EASE
> > > of USE"- This INCLUDES easy installation of the Operating System
> > 
> > Following the handbook makes FreeBSD installable by nearly anyone.
> 
> 
> - installable YES, configurable ... you've got to be shitting me :o

Once you find a editor it like, it is exteremely.
 
> - install BSD+wmaker(easy)
> - start the GUI - oops some doc reading here(easy+1)
> - while in wmaker, dynamically change the Montior settings from
> 1600x1200 32b to 1028x768 24b(wouldn't have a clue - off to the docs
> - manually edit configuration files ?? - then restart - but what is
> the correct horizontal frequency OR vertical refresh(hard++) - I
> don't know & I don't want to know(hey while I am at it, why don't I
> start designing my own CPU)... that's why people use Windows(easy to
> configure)

I have all ways found windows harder to configure. Requires to much
muching about and shoe horning it into areas it was never meant to go,
just to get a bit of usability in.

> I played with BSD back in 1997 & thought it needed some work.. so I
> gave it a miss.. Fast Forward to 2004, & all I see are developers
> adding features that are not that important, yet missing the basics
> of what the majority of USER's want(not coders) Apple OSX
> understands this(nice GUI over BSD base - shame about the stupid
> high prices & dumb one button mouse)... sorry BSD/Linux developers
> ...your just giving more air to MS by focusing on the wrong things

You do realize the difference between a bleeding OS and a bloody WM
and that they are both completely seperate?

If you want to talk about missing basics, talk about windows, which
still to this day does not have a proper CLI, windowing system, and
still regards telnet as good do to inept developers and managamnet.
There are a horde of tools and the like it is completely and uderly
missing.

> ...XPde seem to have the right idea... looks promising... hope the
> GUI reaction time is fast http://www.xpde.com/

And agian, under X11, the gui is totally seperate from the OS.

Don't see what is really so special about it yet, given it docs and
the like.

> that reminds me of my Java Lecturer(I hate Java BTW) in which every
> 

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2004-07-28 22:53, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Whats the purpose of having to manually set the system to automount ??
> > > as opposed to having it as a system install default ?? if there is an
> > > advantage, I am sure its for the 0.01% of the user base
> >
> > It's more in the range of 99.9%.  Automounting can be annoying like hell
> > when you happen to accidentally insert media in your drives.  It can
> > also be insecure if you don't want anyone to use the machine you've
> > installed to mount CD-ROMs, floppies or other media of their choise.
>
> Accidently ?? what ?? Like you were walking down a hall way, tripped &
> slipped & accidenlty shoved a CD into the drive :))
>
> I can put a CD into Windows 2000 & it has never been accessed unless I
> explicitly do it. - I don't see the problem ??

Yes, which is exactly why every CD-ROM I've put in Windows 2000 installations
is immediately scanned and autorun in the default setup of the system.

Including those CD-ROMs whose autorun programs are brain-damaged and crash
because of disk errors or bugs in the autorun program itself.

Oh come on, I consider autorunning of removable media a security risk.  You
like it and try to present the opposite behavior as a fault.  I don't think
there is any case we can agree on this point.  The best we can do about it
is help you install amd, the automounter daemon and let us all live in peace :P

> > Instead of leaving *all* the users exposed to risks like this, which is
> > the usual Windows philosophy of doing stuff, FreeBSD has the capability
> > to automount media but keeps it disabled by default.
>
> Why not enable it by default & then allow people who love messing around
> with OS disable it manually - this seems more logical ...

Exposing everyone to an unnecessary risk seems more logical just to please the
users that come from a different OS?  Hmmm...  I really don't think so.

> hey why not add a nice GUI that allows you to edit all the OS configurations
>  nahh ... no one would use that !!

Because it requires a lot of things to work Right(TM) from the moment a
computer fires up until the point that a usable GUI can reach a state of
stability.  You can always enable XDM at boot time and wait just a bit until
X11 fires up, when you will be able to log into your BSD machine using a GUI.

This is not something that should be forced on everyone though, because a lot
of things might break and leave the user in the sorry state the Windows users
find themselves so very often -- with a computer that has barely managed to
reach a graphical mode and then froze when some driver did a stupid thing,
leaving nothing but a blank screen to stare at.

> > Is it so hard to edit a text file like rc.conf and add a simple line
> > like this?
> >
> > amd_enable="YES"
>
> Hard to edit... no your right, knowing where the file is located, yes ??
> knowing where in the file it needs to go or does ordering matter, yes ??

One of the first things you see when logging into your BSD system is:

o  The Handbook and FAQ documents are at http://www.FreeBSD.org/ and,
   along with the mailing lists, can be searched by going to
   http://www.FreeBSD.org/search/.  If the doc distribution has
   been installed, they're also available formatted in /usr/share/doc.

All of the things you've presented so far as "difficult" and "confusing" are
explained in the documentation pointed at by this message.  If you had read
even the Handbook you'd already know that it contains a chapter devoted to
"Configuration and Tuning", which includes:

   11.3 Core Configuration

   The principal location for system configuration information is
   within /etc/rc.conf. This file contains a wide range of
   configuration information, principally used at system startup to
   configure the system.  Its name directly implies this; it is
   configuration information for the rc* files.

   An administrator should make entries in the rc.conf file to
   override the default settings from /etc/defaults/rc.conf. The
   defaults file should not be copied verbatim to /etc - it contains
   default values, not examples. All system-specific changes should be
   made in the rc.conf file itself.

If something was confusing or you couldn't locate something in the docs, as
every single page of the documentation says in the bottom of the text you
could have mailed your questions here:

  For questions about FreeBSD, read the documentation before
 contacting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

  For questions about this documentation, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

If you have tried all of these instead of bitching that FreeBSD is not
Windows, I'm sure something more productive would have happened :-/

> > Do you really mean that this is so much harder to do than fumble and
> > fight with multiple dialogs, which you have to remember by heart of
> > course, just to fin

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Ruben de Groot]

I just need to set the record straight on this automount issue you keep
ranting about...

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:53:30PM -0700, DK typed:

[...]

> > > Whats the purpose of having to manually set the system to automount ??
> > > as opposed to having it as a system install default ?? if there is an
> > > advantage, I am sure its for the 0.01% of the user base
> > 
> > It's more in the range of 99.9%.  Automounting can be annoying like hell
> > when you happen to accidentally insert media in your drives.  It can
> > also be insecure if you don't want anyone to use the machine you've
> > installed to mount CD-ROMs, floppies or other media of their choise.
> 
> Accidently ?? what ?? Like you were walking down a hall way, tripped & slipped
> & accidenlty shoved a CD into the drive :))

No, more like you put a cd with sensitive data on it in the wrong tray
of your 40+ identical rackmounted servers, exposing it to the wrong users
on the wrong server.

> I can put a CD into Windows 2000 & it has never been accessed unless I
> explicitly do it. - I don't see the problem ??

You keep on measuring FreeBSD by MS Windows standards. Wrong. FreeBSD (and
Unixlike OSses in general) are designed to be truly *multi-user* operating
systems and their default settings will reflect that. Especially FreeBSD,
which still is mostly used as a server OS, servicing many users.

> - as for automounting, I think you are confusing this with AutoRUN for CD's
> AFAIK - you cannot disable automounting of Floppys/CD in Windows 2000

And they call this a server platform? What a joke!

Ruben
___
[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 installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- Joshua Tinnin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > maybe you would like a test of the Apache Web Server on BSD against the
> > Apache Web Server on Windows 2000 ?? - I will search the net & get back to
> > you on that if you are interested ??
> >
> > I wonder if people that run web servers on BSD never use a GUI thereby
> > saying how fast BSD is... - yes, keep using VI & don't forget to feed the
> > Horse :)
> 
> Have you taken a look at this lately?
> 
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
> 
> I don't know how important uptime is to you, but that's a big reason so many 
> people use it.


I agree with you 110% ... thats why I want to install & run a FreeBSD Apache
Server instead of using a Windows Server box running Apache.


Kind Regards,

DK




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
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]"

Re: Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- Guillermo_García-Rojas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have an old Pentium-MMX 200 Mhz and 40Mb RAM, 1 Gb HD.
> Can you put Windows 2000 on it?
> I don't think so.

MY setup test box is:
Pentium 200Mhz
128MB RAM
16MB TNT Graphics Card
Windows 2000 runs rock solid & fast on my 17inch monitor :)

... & 1GIG is more than enough for Windows 2000 with about 600MB to spare



> Did I mention I have no monitor???
> I do not need it, so I do not need a GUI
> 
> 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 :)

 
> 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 :)


> 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



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]"

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > .. I know its hard for people to swallow, but MS Windows IS easier to
> > use than BSD/Linux/OSX ...  thats WHY its the most widely
> > used regardless of marketing/costs etc ...
> 
> Yes, I know.  Windows is easier.  Thanks, I won't buy!

Neither will I .. can't remember the last time I paid for software...
All my software is War.. *cough* ...donated...

 
> Do you want to come at home and explain what is easy about Windows to my
> sister who's been fighting with DVD playback on Windows XP for more than
> a month now, who wasted precious exam-period time to troubleshoot and
> solve Powerpoint and Word problems?

I agree with you 100% Windows XP is CRAP! - I don't use it - its Windows 2000
with Windows ME integrated functionalty.

If you want a rock solid GUI workstation, stick with Windows 2000
(all other Windows version are crap - I have tried & tested them all)



 
> Reaction-time that you mention above is something that depends on a lot
> of subjective factors, on the themes you have selected, on the load of
> the machine at the time and a host of other things.  Can you describe
> the setup of the machine at the time you measured this "reaction time"
> that bothered you and the tests you did to measure it?


My Test Box Setup:
Pentium 200Mhz
128MB RAM
5 GIG HD
16MB TNT Graphics Card
Windows 2000 Parition (2GIG)
FreeBSD Partition (3GIG)


 
> FreeBSD is not Linux.  Sorry, you'd have to complain to the Fedora
> people for any problems you have with their slow monster of an
> RPM-beast.
> 
> Yes, I hate working on Fedora too, and I avoid it like hell.  But that
> has nothing to do with the way FreeBSD works or what it can do :)

Your right... I went off topic.

 
> The X11 desktop is described in detail in "The X Window System", a
> chapter of the FreeBSD Handbook.  This chapter contains a lot of useful
> information for people who are new to X11.  Please do read it.
> 
> There is even a section in that chapter that describes XFCE4 and the
> steps that you need to take to install it and start it.  I'm sure you'll
> find it very helpful.


I will try another xfce4 install following step-by-step the BSD docs & get back
to you... :)

All I did so far was:

# pkg_add xfce4

then went to .xinitrc with VI
and added "exec startxfce4"

.. typed startx & xfce wouldn't start...



> > Whats the purpose of having to manually set the system to automount ??
> > as opposed to having it as a system install default ?? if there is an
> > advantage, I am sure its for the 0.01% of the user base
> 
> It's more in the range of 99.9%.  Automounting can be annoying like hell
> when you happen to accidentally insert media in your drives.  It can
> also be insecure if you don't want anyone to use the machine you've
> installed to mount CD-ROMs, floppies or other media of their choise.

Accidently ?? what ?? Like you were walking down a hall way, tripped & slipped
& accidenlty shoved a CD into the drive :))

I can put a CD into Windows 2000 & it has never been accessed unless I
explicitly do it. - I don't see the problem ??



 
> Instead of leaving *all* the users exposed to risks like this, which is
> the usual Windows philosophy of doing stuff, FreeBSD has the capability
> to automount media but keeps it disabled by default.

Why not enable it by default & then allow people who love messing around with
OS disable it manually - this seems more logical
 hey why not add a nice GUI that allows you to edit all the OS
configurations  nahh ... no one would use that !!


 
> Is it so hard to edit a text file like rc.conf and add a simple line
> like this?
> 
> amd_enable="YES"

Hard to edit... no your right, knowing where the file is located, yes ??
knowing where in the file it needs to go or does ordering matter, yes ??


 
> Do you really mean that this is so much harder to do than fumble and
> fight with multiple dialogs, which you have to remember by heart of
> course, just to find that disabling automounting is impossible (unless
> you download TweakMyRegistry version 95.3.2000.13.27 paying careful
> attention to the version numbers because the wrong version can mess up
> your entire system with a single click)?

TweakMyRegisty ?? not needed - use MS TweakUI - Freeware
Windows XP - crap(stick with Windows 2000 - its the stable version, like v4.10)

- as for automounting, I think you are confusing this with AutoRUN for CD's
AFAIK - you cannot disable automounting of Floppys/CD in Windows 2000




> > - installable YES, configurable ... you've got to be shitting me :o
> 
> 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



> > - while in wmaker, dynamically change the Montior settings from
> > 1600x1200 32b to 1028x768 24b (wouldn't have a clue - off to the docs
> > - manually edit configuration files ??

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2004-07-28 09:27, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All I want from BSD to is a Rock Solid Web Server with as default:
> - FreeBSD+Minimilist GUI(wmaker will do)
> - File Manager(got xfe working)

A GUI is something that is not required for a web server to function.
Having said that, I'm using Apache on my workstation at home which
(usually) also runs X11, windowmaker, a couple of xterms, a mozilla
window with several tabs, and tkdesk when I need a GUI for file
management (which is rare but still works fine).

You should really try TkDesk one of these days.  It's my all times
favorite from the x11-fm category! ;-)

> - Editor(got nedit installed)

Great choise!  The look & feel of nedit is AFAIK as close as one can get
to the interface of Windows editors.  The transition from wimpy editors
like Notepad that croak and die miserably with files larger than a few
KB to the power and flexibility of nedit is probably going to take a
while to get used to, but I'm sure you'll eventually get the hang of it
and be pleasantly surprised.

> - Apache+Mod_SSL+MySQL+PHP+Mod_Perl

Despite the fact that this *can* be done, are you sure you want all
those extras on your web server?  At least two of them (PHP and
mod_perl) have overlapping functionality that I find rather redundant to
have on one installation of Apache, unless of course you're going to
sell virtual domain hosting to others who might want either the one or
the other or even both.

> - Firewall (is one installed as default ??)

The Handbook is, again, your friend.  FreeBSD comes with two different
firewalls you can choose from, fully integrated to the heart of the OS,
the FreeBSD kernel.  No need to install third-party software just to
enable security on your machine.

The two firewalls, ipfw and ipfilter, can be enabled either by loading
the proper 'module' to your kernel or by rebuilding the kernel to
include the support for whichever of the two you prefer.

The Handbook contains detailed instructions about setting up ipfw and
there are tons of articles online about setting up ipfilter.  The
mailing list archives of this list also include a wealth of posts about
configuring these two firewalls; I know because I've posted my share of
articles too.

Start at www.FreeBSD.org and browse to the mailing list archives.
Search for posts about "firewall", "ipfw" and "ipfilter".  Visit the
FreeBSD documentation pages at www.FreeBSD.org/docs.html and read the
article about "dialup-firewalls", the Handbook section on "Security" or
anything else you feel that you need.

> - Web Browser(Mozilla installed but its slow - will try firefox later)
> Thats all, nothing else!

Mozilla runs super-fast on a Celeron @ 1800 MHz here, but if you try
firefox and find it simpler (it *is* simpler, and lighter than the
full-blown mozilla) and you like it, then use that instead.  This is
just one of the cases where you're free to choose the way YOU want to
work when dealing with FreeBSD ;-)

> I would have thought that with so many people running BSD Web Servers,
> that there would be a similar default install out-of-the-box out
> there...

We don't try to pretend that everyone can be pleased with the same set
of tools.  This is why it initially seems hard to use BSD.  The great
number of choises seems overwhelming.  Coupled with the relative
'strangeness' of a completely new system it becomes unbearable.

Patience...

This is all you need for a while, while trying out a new system.

> I guess my problem is I know where all the files go on my Windows box,
> but I am not sure where the files go on the BSD box when an install
> goes wrong.

This is part of the 'strangeness' I mentioned above.  Don't worry.  Soon
it all starts to fit in place, and you feel rather "at home" in BSD too.

> If the pkg_delete fails, how do I manually remove the files for a
> failed [Apache+Mod_SSL+MySQL+PHP+Mod_Perl] installation ??

The ports install stuff under /usr/local unless you specify otherwise
(even this simple detail is configurable).

I can't post in a simple message all the possible locations under
/usr/local that a package might write files, but good candidates are:

/usr/local/bin
/usr/local/sbin
/usr/local/lib
/usr/local/libexec
/usr/local/share

If these paths seem like Greek to you, please refer to the hier(7)
manpage by running:

% man hier

It contains a brief description of the filesystem layout on a FreeBSD
system.  A lot of these paths are described there.

> Yes, apache by itself is easy, its installing the bunch -
> Apache+Mod_SSL+MySQL+PHP+Mod_Perl

You probably tried to bite a very large mouthful in a short time.

As someone else posted, there is a learning curve that is a bit steep at
first.

Try installing one at a time.  See if each part works as expected and,
as I've repeatedly said, don't be afraid to ask.  About anything...
Even the simplest thing might seem a huge mountainous obstacle to you,
impossible to pass, but perhaps someo

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Joshua Tinnin]

On Wednesday 28 July 2004 07:28 am, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> maybe you would like a test of the Apache Web Server on BSD against the
> Apache Web Server on Windows 2000 ?? - I will search the net & get back to
> you on that if you are interested ??
>
> I wonder if people that run web servers on BSD never use a GUI thereby
> saying how fast BSD is... - yes, keep using VI & don't forget to feed the
> Horse :)

Have you taken a look at this lately?

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

I don't know how important uptime is to you, but that's a big reason so many 
people use it.

- jt
___
[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 installer package like this ???

[Joshua Tinnin]

On Wednesday 28 July 2004 09:27 am, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >  Nobody learns how to install, configure, use & hack a new system in an
> > afternoon's time
>
> no... 6 days, that should be more than enough... I mastered windows 95 in 1

Really? You mean you completely memorized all the important Win95 registry 
keys in one day?

This is funny. You know, if you really wanted you could just host your site on 
Win95. Or whatever Win with IIS. But it looks to me like you're unhappy 
because you're encountering the "real" way this is done for the first time, 
and it's more complicated than Windows. Well, yes it is, but it's also the 
right way to do it, without cutting corners. In the end you'll be able to 
control the system much better, which should be of interest to you if you're 
writing programming for the web.

If you want a more powerful system, then take the time to learn it (talking 
about much more than a week). If you just need to keep working and don't have 
the time to learn something new, then stick with what you know.

- jt
___
[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 installer package like this ???

[Guillermo García-Rojas]

Ok, this is mi case:

I have an old Pentium-MMX 200 Mhz and 40Mb RAM, 1 Gb HD.
Can you put Windows 2000 on it?
I don't think so.

It's running OpenBSD 3.5, it can run FreeBSD too.

This machine is my DHCP server for 9 machines and gives them internet
access, it does NAT too.

Did I mention I have no monitor???
I do not need it, so I do not need a GUI

Can you live without your Windows 2000 GUI? Can you work without it?

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?

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??

Regards!

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:10 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-07-28 07:28, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Remko Lodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 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?).
> >
> > 6 CD's for what ??? An OS with a FAST GUI/File Manager/FindFiles/Editor + Web 
> > Server
> > ... more like 350MB ;) then add 250MB for Office :))
> 
> That's the route some Linux distributions have been going down.
> 
> Please, bear in mind while your're trying to set up FreeBSD, that
> FreeBSD is thankfully not like these Linux distributions.  It's not even
> a Linux distribution at all, but a BSD system.
> 
> > > 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'.
> >
> > whats apxs'ed short for ??
> 
> Apache server extensions that do not need to be linked to your Web
> server at build time, but can be loaded at run-time as modules.
> 
> > Refreshing the system without a reboot is a Priority in front of
> > Automount ?? nice one developers...
> 
> > & windows 2000 doesn't have a nice SMP ... that's news to my DUAL 1
> > Ghz Pentium III system at home I use as a workstation
> 
> I don't know about that.  I've only worked with non-SMP systems so far.
> Perhaps Remko was overreacting to your overreaction ;-)
> 
> > .. I know its hard for people to swallow, but MS Windows IS easier to
> > use than BSD/Linux/OSX ...  thats WHY its the most widely
> > used regardless of marketing/costs etc ...
> 
> Yes, I know.  Windows is easier.  Thanks, I won't buy!
> 
> Do you want to come at home and explain what is easy about Windows to my
> sister who's been fighting with DVD playback on Windows XP for more than
> a month now, who wasted precious exam-period time to troubleshoot and
> solve Powerpoint and Word problems?
> 
> > Gnome starts faster than Windows ?? Start time is not important - I am
> > talking about reaction time of the GUI - Menu's apearing, moving
> > icons, applications appearing etc -
> 
> Start-time *IS* important and I don't know why you want to present it
> like something totally unimportant.  Perhaps because it suits your
> bragging about the "speed" of Windows?  I'm not sure :-(
> 
> Reaction-time that you mention above is something that depends on a lot
> of subjective factors, on the themes you have selected, on the load of
> the machine at the time and a host of other things.  Can you describe
> the setup of the machine at the time you measured this "reaction time"
> that bothered you and the tests you did to measure it?
> 
> > Working with Fedora at Uni (Yes, I am doing a Masters) the other day,
> > its on a 50 Node Cluster - Its running on systems faster than what I
> > have at home(above), yet feels like its as gluggy as Windows 95! -
> > nice one Linux
> 
> FreeBSD is not Linux.  Sorry, you'd have to complain to the Fedora
> people for any problems you have with their slow monster of an
> RPM-beast.
> 
> Yes, I hate working on Fedora too, and I avoid it like hell.  But that
> has nothing to do with the way FreeBSD works or what it can do :)
> 
> > As for XFCE, how do you start it from the .xinitrc The XFCE Homepage
> > site says "exec startxfce4" - but that didn't work for me ??
> 
> The X11 desktop is described in detail in "The X Window System", a
> chapter of the FreeBSD Handbook.  This chapter contains a lot of useful
> information for people who are new to X11.  Please do read it.
> 
> There is even a section in that chapter that describes XFCE4 and the
> steps that you need to take to install it and start it.  I'm sure you'll
> find it very helpful.
> 
> As usual, if you have comments, suggestions or complaints about the
> document, you can always contact the FreeBSD Documentation Team as
> described in the bottom of every documentation page.

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2004-07-28 07:28, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Remko Lodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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?).
>
> 6 CD's for what ??? An OS with a FAST GUI/File Manager/FindFiles/Editor + Web Server
> ... more like 350MB ;) then add 250MB for Office :))

That's the route some Linux distributions have been going down.

Please, bear in mind while your're trying to set up FreeBSD, that
FreeBSD is thankfully not like these Linux distributions.  It's not even
a Linux distribution at all, but a BSD system.

> > 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'.
>
> whats apxs'ed short for ??

Apache server extensions that do not need to be linked to your Web
server at build time, but can be loaded at run-time as modules.

> Refreshing the system without a reboot is a Priority in front of
> Automount ?? nice one developers...

> & windows 2000 doesn't have a nice SMP ... that's news to my DUAL 1
> Ghz Pentium III system at home I use as a workstation

I don't know about that.  I've only worked with non-SMP systems so far.
Perhaps Remko was overreacting to your overreaction ;-)

> .. I know its hard for people to swallow, but MS Windows IS easier to
> use than BSD/Linux/OSX ...  thats WHY its the most widely
> used regardless of marketing/costs etc ...

Yes, I know.  Windows is easier.  Thanks, I won't buy!

Do you want to come at home and explain what is easy about Windows to my
sister who's been fighting with DVD playback on Windows XP for more than
a month now, who wasted precious exam-period time to troubleshoot and
solve Powerpoint and Word problems?

> Gnome starts faster than Windows ?? Start time is not important - I am
> talking about reaction time of the GUI - Menu's apearing, moving
> icons, applications appearing etc -

Start-time *IS* important and I don't know why you want to present it
like something totally unimportant.  Perhaps because it suits your
bragging about the "speed" of Windows?  I'm not sure :-(

Reaction-time that you mention above is something that depends on a lot
of subjective factors, on the themes you have selected, on the load of
the machine at the time and a host of other things.  Can you describe
the setup of the machine at the time you measured this "reaction time"
that bothered you and the tests you did to measure it?

> Working with Fedora at Uni (Yes, I am doing a Masters) the other day,
> its on a 50 Node Cluster - Its running on systems faster than what I
> have at home(above), yet feels like its as gluggy as Windows 95! -
> nice one Linux

FreeBSD is not Linux.  Sorry, you'd have to complain to the Fedora
people for any problems you have with their slow monster of an
RPM-beast.

Yes, I hate working on Fedora too, and I avoid it like hell.  But that
has nothing to do with the way FreeBSD works or what it can do :)

> As for XFCE, how do you start it from the .xinitrc The XFCE Homepage
> site says "exec startxfce4" - but that didn't work for me ??

The X11 desktop is described in detail in "The X Window System", a
chapter of the FreeBSD Handbook.  This chapter contains a lot of useful
information for people who are new to X11.  Please do read it.

There is even a section in that chapter that describes XFCE4 and the
steps that you need to take to install it and start it.  I'm sure you'll
find it very helpful.

As usual, if you have comments, suggestions or complaints about the
document, you can always contact the FreeBSD Documentation Team as
described in the bottom of every documentation page.

Point your favorite browser to

http://www.FreeBSD.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x11.html

and happy reading :-)

> Whats the purpose of having to manually set the system to automount ??
> as opposed to having it as a system install default ?? if there is an
> advantage, I am sure its for the 0.01% of the user base

It's more in the range of 99.9%.  Automounting can be annoying like hell
when you happen to accidentally insert media in your drives.  It can
also be insecure if you don't want anyone to use the machine you've
installed to mount CD-ROMs, floppies or other media of their choise.

Instead of leaving *all* the users exposed to risks like this, which is
the usual Windows philosophy of doing stuff, FreeBSD has the capability
to automount media but keeps it disabled by default.

Is it so hard to edit a text file like rc.conf and add a simple line
like this?

amd_enable="YES"

Do you really mean that this is so m

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some times, it's better to install smaller packages that work together
> in a well-known way, than huge mega-monsters that break in unexpected
> ways later on.
Firstly, thnx Giorgos for responding!

All I want from BSD to is a Rock Solid Web Server with as default:
- FreeBSD+Minimilist GUI(wmaker will do)
- File Manager(got xfe working)
- Editor(got nedit installed)
- Apache+Mod_SSL+MySQL+PHP+Mod_Perl
- Firewall (is one installed as default ??)
- Web Browser(Mozilla installed but its slow - will try firefox later)
Thats all, nothing else!

I would have thought that with so many people running BSD Web Servers, that there 
would be a
similar default install out-of-the-box out there...


> Anyway, just to check that I'm not writing junk, I've just installed
> apache with mod_ssl, ipv6 and mode_perl support.
> I used the www/apache13-modssl+ipv6 port to install Apache, then
> www/mod_perl to install mod_perl version 1.x (which could be
> substituted in a breeze with www/mod_perl2 to use the newer
> version) tweaked Apache's config file a bit and voila... my web server
> was up and running in less than 5 minutes.

I guess my problem is I know where all the files go on my Windows box, but I am not 
sure where the
files go on the BSD box when an install goes wrong. If the pkg_delete fails, how do I 
manually
remove the files for a failed [Apache+Mod_SSL+MySQL+PHP+Mod_Perl] installation ??


 
> Did you actually *try* to install Apache using the ports?

Yes, apache by itself is easy, its installing the bunch - 
Apache+Mod_SSL+MySQL+PHP+Mod_Perl


> You still didn't answer my question in an earlier post about the problems you seem
> to be having:
> 
>  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.

sorry about, thought I did - here goes:

- Installing Packages is nice & easy & straight forward from the docs(should be more 
of these!)
- Installing ports/packages via ftp/net - Forget it!!
I have barely got BSD running, the last thing I want is connecting a BSD box to my 
broadband
connection ?? Does BSD have a default firewall ?? Don't know, having trouble 
installing stuff let
alone configuring a firewall via scripts/files

Currently as we speak, I am getting about a hit every 10 seconds from worms... 
thankfully being
caught by my firewall on my Windows 2000 box.


>> Why isn't it easy for you to install all these things on FreeBSD?

Specifically, its the ./configure business of the different installations & the 
pedantic order
which to install the different Apache modules etc..

Then its going step by step with the install guides & when I try to install MySQL, I 
type #
groupadd mysql & I get "command not found" ... ??? no idea, I am following the install 
guides...
now if I am doing the same as everyone else with a fresh install of BSD, why is it no 
one else
gets groupadd mysql "command not found" ??

I just don't see the point of compiling each program from source. - But if I try to 
install all of
them from the packages, then it breaks down. - I am used to from Windows, installing 
from
packages, then once everything is installed & running, I go back & tweak the apps to 
my likeing

BSD wants me to do the tweaks in configuration files prior to compiling from source 
BEFORE I have
had a chance to fiddle with the app to SEE what needs to be tweak. ie installing PHP 
the setting
of mm should be --without-mm  ?? what the... that should be a tweak AFTER its 
installed not
before... 

then manually chmod because for some reason, even though I am logged in as root, all 
files are not
by default excute/write accessable

..oops ranting again... what the manual needs, is more step-by-step screen shots so 
things are
less hit & miss - not just for the install process, but for something like install a 
Web Server
with its modules - Apache+Mod_SSL+MySQL+PHP+Mod_Perl


 
> Note that OpenSSL is part of the base system in FreeBSD.  Unlike
> Windows, where in the best case it's considered an "add-on" that you have
> to add later.  You don't need to add anything to your FreeBSD system to
> have OpenSSL support, provided you keep the system itself relatively up
> to date, using the recommended update instructions of the Handbook or
> the file /usr/src/UPDATING.


I assume I would need to be connect to the net for this... but I would first need to 
secure the
system from attack BEFORE I connect - maybe this should be the first part of the docs, 
straight
after installing BSD+GUI+Editor+FileManager but BEFORE installing Apache


 
> > OPTIONAL:
> > IMAP
> Exactly what we have now.  You can use the Ports to install all of the
> above and a lot more.  T

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- Remko Lodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

 
thnx for that :)
So is the correct order:
1. apache+mod_ssl
2. mod_perl
- in what order do you add the MySQL & PHP ??

I have been trying to follow "Apache/MySQL/PHP/Mod_Perl Guide":
http://megaz.arbuz.com/?p=apache_howto
 but after following the long process, MySQL is not running & Mod_Perl wouldn't 
install

BTW: All I have been doing for 6 days is read docs/man/guides...


> > 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?).


6 CD's for what ??? An OS with a FAST GUI/File Manager/FindFiles/Editor + Web Server
... more like 350MB ;) then add 250MB for Office :))


> > 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'.


whats apxs'ed short for ??



> > 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?


Refreshing the system without a reboot is a Priority in front of Automount ?? nice one 
developers
... & windows 2000 doesn't have a nice SMP ... that's news to my DUAL 1 Ghz Pentium 
III system at
home I use as a workstation

.. I know its hard for people to swallow, but MS Windows IS easier to use than 
BSD/Linux/OSX ...
thats WHY its the most widely used regardless of marketing/costs etc ...


> > - 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 

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[DK]

--- 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!!

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)

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


> > 
> 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.

I can install apache OK. Installing other modules(mod_perl, mod_ssl, php etc...) with 
it is a
nightmare...


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


Kind Regards,

DK



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
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]"

Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2004-07-28 02:43, DK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wish BSD had a BigApache installer package, as it would make my life
> easier...

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).

> 
> 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.
> --

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.

- Giorgos

___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"