Ubuntu does some funky stuff with the root account, I'm not sure if it reduces functionality, but maybe.
I think the biggest reason is, Ubuntu gives you an easy to set up/ easy to use linux system at the expense of customability. Once you get comfortable with linux using Ubuntu, you may want to move on to more advanced things that are more difficult of even impossible to do in Ubuntu because Ubuntu hides or blocks things in order to "protect the user from themself" so to speak.
edit: BTW, this is speculation as I have barely used Ubuntu. I started with Redhat way before Ubuntu existed or even Debian was hardly heard of, and have stuck with it through CentOS and Fedora Core.
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
There are linux distros that don't have tcpdump in their base install?
with a stage 2 install, it isn't there unless you put it there....I once spaced installing slocate and cron. It's actually the reason I LIKE gentoo, as it's stripped down to what I need for the box. Sometimes that can be bad (like when I realize I don't have tcpdump) but since emerge tcpdump takes less then 10 minutes on a craptastic P2 400, it's not a huge deal.
As far as the root/Ubuntu thing, I really have learned to like that. It's also REALLY GOOD practice for a noob. I started out doing EVERYTHING as root. Never got burned, but I could easily get burned, I'm sure. Learning not to use su or root login is just good.
Maybe I'm spoiled or something, but there are certain utilities I _expect_ in an OS. Some kind of sniffing program (tcpdump on Linux/BSD and snoop on Solaris) is definitely one of them. emerge isn't very useful if you're trying to figure out what's wrong with the network.
I would boot off the live CD, that DOES have the sniffer, and either fix the problem, or chroot into the install with the working livecd network and emerge it
I understand expecting some things, but some carry it too far. I know people who don't think linux is "working" unless you have X and either KDE or gnome by default. This also gives you control. Not sure how hard it is to change later, but can you change sysloggers or cron deamons in BSD? Can you select which one you want to use during the install? Can you (in case you have some odd setup) select not to have one if you want?
I understand expecting some things, but some carry it too far. I know people who don't think linux is "working" unless you have X and either KDE or gnome by default. This also gives you control. Not sure how hard it is to change later, but can you change sysloggers or cron deamons in BSD? Can you select which one you want to use during the install? Can you (in case you have some odd setup) select not to have one if you want?
Originally posted by: nweaver
I would boot off the live CD, that DOES have the sniffer, and either fix the problem, or chroot into the install with the working livecd network and emerge it
And if you don't have a live cd?
Yes, but why would I?
Kind of. You can install the package using the siteXX.tgz thing, but the ones installed by default are fine.
No, they're necessary to the system.
EDIT: You can't select not to have one during the install. If you want to use a customized OS you can remove things, but it isn't a good idea. The base system for OpenBSD rightly isn't regulated by the packaging system.
Idea,
Don't kid your self setting up any of this stuff is a big job and takes alot of know how and reading to get it rightregardless fo platform. If you just want a network storage and arent interested in the other controlls / functions I suggest a plug and play networking hardware that works off a static / configurable IP. Dont kid your self. Adding a new HDD controler and 2 xtra HDDs that is a big change.
Don't kid your self setting up any of this stuff is a big job and takes alot of know how and reading to get it rightregardless fo platform. If you just want a network storage and arent interested in the other controlls / functions I suggest a plug and play networking hardware that works off a static / configurable IP. Dont kid your self. Adding a new HDD controler and 2 xtra HDDs that is a big change.
I can understand Linux being being fun for a hobby, I used to do that when I was in my teens. But the lack of hardware support for the cutting edge made me ditch it like a bad habbit. When WindowsXP came out, that was the end of Linux for me. Most everyone bashed Windows9X because it was unstable, but with XP, it pretty much is rock solid.
Our lead programer here at our tech firm even conceded that with WindowsXP, Linux does not have a huge edge any longer. Linux is generally more secure, however, with a good firewall setup and keeping up to date with the MS patches, XP will do fine.
I administrater several Windows 2000 servers and it is a solid OS.
Oh well, just my opinion.
Our lead programer here at our tech firm even conceded that with WindowsXP, Linux does not have a huge edge any longer. Linux is generally more secure, however, with a good firewall setup and keeping up to date with the MS patches, XP will do fine.
I administrater several Windows 2000 servers and it is a solid OS.
Oh well, just my opinion.
I've tried various flavors of Linux over the years, mostly as experiments to try and use something other than windows. Most of the time it just hasn't worked out. There was always something that wasn't compatible, and despite doing all the homework, asking all the questions I could on the internet and giving it both time and patience, some problems were just too complex or unsolvable.
I still have much admiration for Linux, but even now, when I field questions to the Suse or Ubuntu community, people are still telling me upfront that certain issues are going to be a pain. Networked printing, drivers for my laserjet, video card drivers, etc, - I always questions specific to my own hardware.
I'm still optimistic though - perhaps sometime down the road I'll reconsider using it as a learning tool during a new system build.
I still have much admiration for Linux, but even now, when I field questions to the Suse or Ubuntu community, people are still telling me upfront that certain issues are going to be a pain. Networked printing, drivers for my laserjet, video card drivers, etc, - I always questions specific to my own hardware.
I'm still optimistic though - perhaps sometime down the road I'll reconsider using it as a learning tool during a new system build.
The general concensus is that developers do not get 100% hardware compatibility and game support by day one, Linux is garbage.
There are more things than just PCs to run OSS on, as well. Nothing is too difficult to learn with any piece of software. It is just a matter of how much time you are willing to invest towards the solution. Nobody ever sat down day one in front of a windows machine and said, "Damn, I'm a Active Directory and Exchange 2003 guru." Nor did anyone sit down in front of a linux terminal and say, "Bah I know how to configure my XF86-Config-4 from scratch, watch this..." When you come from either side of the fence it always seems odd to work with the other sides product. It's outside your comfort zone, and people generally just give up easily. The sad fact is if you really wanted something to work in Linux you could write your own drivers. That's how OSS works. You get access to the underlying mechanisms and have all the tools to make it work the way you think it should.
If you understand why so many distributions are available is because of that simple fact. Someone along the line said you know, I think I have a smarter way of making this work for me. So they go out a sort the packages they need to make the system respond to how it is logic to them. For me the *nix methodologies just seem more sane than the windows way of approaching certain problems. The flexibility, cost, and communities are IMO much more developed.
There are more things than just PCs to run OSS on, as well. Nothing is too difficult to learn with any piece of software. It is just a matter of how much time you are willing to invest towards the solution. Nobody ever sat down day one in front of a windows machine and said, "Damn, I'm a Active Directory and Exchange 2003 guru." Nor did anyone sit down in front of a linux terminal and say, "Bah I know how to configure my XF86-Config-4 from scratch, watch this..." When you come from either side of the fence it always seems odd to work with the other sides product. It's outside your comfort zone, and people generally just give up easily. The sad fact is if you really wanted something to work in Linux you could write your own drivers. That's how OSS works. You get access to the underlying mechanisms and have all the tools to make it work the way you think it should.
If you understand why so many distributions are available is because of that simple fact. Someone along the line said you know, I think I have a smarter way of making this work for me. So they go out a sort the packages they need to make the system respond to how it is logic to them. For me the *nix methodologies just seem more sane than the windows way of approaching certain problems. The flexibility, cost, and communities are IMO much more developed.
Your point? I am still trying to figure out what your point was. Especially in regards to my reply. Anyway, since you went off topic, I will add that many more places uses Windows 2000/2003 advanced server than Linux. Both seem to work great for many companies.
It's not just a hobby anymore. That's why more websites are running on Linux than anything else.
It is a hobby if you do not directly work on a Unix/Linux server. If you like to"toy" with it, like many do, it is a "hobby". So, unless you are an admin of a COMPANY, whether it be your own, or a big shot one, you will have to consider it a hobby.
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Or an educational experience.
Or an evaluation.
True... But I would always say it is an educational experience and for that matter, so would any peice of software. Linux is difficult to learn on your own, without be taught it, it can cause some major head-aches. I can concede that I myself do not wish to take the time it requires to get proficient with writing drivers and so on... But then again, I never did have anyone show me. I went straight from the book. It basically comes down to two things. Money & Time. Since I am not so much concerned with paying $299 for WindowsXP Professional, I do not feel the need to run Linux. While I could run Linux and do some cool things with it, I just do not feel the need too since it would require a lot more of my time and I really do not need to worry about saving $299. Though Linux distrubution isn't free, so depending on the version, I guess it isn't quite free, but significantly cheaper than WindowsXP. This is on the client end of things... On the server end of things, it is a different story... People have thier preferences.
I did set up an Apache web server several years ago and it worked really well. But I remember reading that Apache is no longer the #1 used Webserver. But I noticed you mentioned Linux was used as the #1 webserver, so perhaps they took the lead or something other than Apache is being used for Linux boxes? Have been out of the loop for... 4-5 years.
Edit ** Typos... I forgot my glasses today at work... :-/
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Or an educational experience.
Or an evaluation.
True... But I would always say it is an educational experience and for that matter, so would any peice of software. Linux is difficult to learn on your own, without be taught it, it can cause some major head-aches. I can concede that I myself do not wish to take the time it requires to get proficient with writing drivers and so on... But then again, I never did have anyone show me. I went straight from the book. It basically comes down to two things. Money & Time. Since I am not so much concerned with paying $299 for WindowsXP Professional, I do not feel the need to run Linux. While I could run Linux and do some cool things with it, I just do not feel the need too since it would require a lot more of my time and I really do not need to worry about saving $299. Though Linux distrubution isn't free, so depending on the version, I guess it isn't quite free, but significantly cheaper than WindowsXP. This is on the client end of things... On the server end of things, it is a different story... People have thier preferences.
I did set up an Apache web server several years ago and it worked really well. But I remember reading that Apache is no longer the #1 used Webserver. But I noticed you mentioned Linux was used as the #1 webserver, so perhaps they took the lead or something other than Apache is being used for Linux boxes? Have been out of the loop for... 4-5 years.
Edit ** Typos... I forgot my glasses today at work... :-/
I admit, I haven't looked at the numbers recently.
What is the #1 webserving software these days if it isn't apache?
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Or an educational experience.
Or an evaluation.
True... But I would always say it is an educational experience and for that matter, so would any peice of software. Linux is difficult to learn on your own, without be taught it, it can cause some major head-aches. I can concede that I myself do not wish to take the time it requires to get proficient with writing drivers and so on... But then again, I never did have anyone show me. I went straight from the book. It basically comes down to two things. Money & Time. Since I am not so much concerned with paying $299 for WindowsXP Professional, I do not feel the need to run Linux. While I could run Linux and do some cool things with it, I just do not feel the need too since it would require a lot more of my time and I really do not need to worry about saving $299. Though Linux distrubution isn't free, so depending on the version, I guess it isn't quite free, but significantly cheaper than WindowsXP. This is on the client end of things... On the server end of things, it is a different story... People have thier preferences.
I did set up an Apache web server several years ago and it worked really well. But I remember reading that Apache is no longer the #1 used Webserver. But I noticed you mentioned Linux was used as the #1 webserver, so perhaps they took the lead or something other than Apache is being used for Linux boxes? Have been out of the loop for... 4-5 years.
Edit ** Typos... I forgot my glasses today at work... :-/
I admit, I haven't looked at the numbers recently.
What is the #1 webserving software these days if it isn't apache?
Nope, you are right... It is #1 as far as the numbers go. I am not sure how it would rank in terms of complete revenue or people hosted per day, something that most likely could not be analyzed.
Link that contains a lot of information on the subject here.
Edit ** But IIS isn't doing to shabby in terms of numbers. Considering that Apache is free, and well, MS is about 1K at the cheapest... I can understand why someone would use Apache, it makes sense for a lot of small businesses. I would be interested to see an statistic for giant domains, excluding the small fries. Such as domains with 100,000 hits a day. Would it be the same? Maybe. Just curious is all... I know some giant sites use Apache, so it does the job, that is for sure. The numbers speak for themselves.
Apache isn't used becuase it's "free", it's used because it's more robust, flexible, secure, faster, easier....the list goes on.
I get so damn frustrated with IIS. You have a million property boxes with multiple tabs. A single config file would be MUCH easier to manage (and backup your config)
can you chroot the IIS process? I know that when I review my webserver logs, I get alot of IIS exploit scripts hitting it, trying to overflow the buffer and get cmd.exe
lucky9
Senior member
- Sep 6, 2003
- 557
- 0
- 0
For one that runs 'out of the box' I'd recommend SimplyMEPIS 3.3.1-1
it has everything you need and is easy to install. Good forums. There's still some transitional problems with updating due the changes with KDE. But out of the box it's stable and secure and easy as pie.
it has everything you need and is easy to install. Good forums. There's still some transitional problems with updating due the changes with KDE. But out of the box it's stable and secure and easy as pie.
The same goes for any OS. It pains me to see Workgroup Managers try to do configuration on windows machines, when they have no obvious reason for being anywhere near them. Even with most people, outside of a link to IE or Word they are hopeless. I even still remember people asking questions about Word, heck from time to time here there are people with questions about IE. It doesn't mean that they are clueless, it's just that the average user really doesn't delve deeply into the system.
I mean, from a simple windows perspective ask someone who runs an exchange mail system if they've ever read the MS Exchange whitepapers. Ask them what kind of backend they should be running for the necessary IOPs based on typical mailbox size and user amount. I can guarantee you will hear, "No....Huh?
So if we all use 2003, we can benefit from IIS 6? Wouldn't that imply the use of AD as well?
I do agree it comes down to a money time issue. It really always has been that. People argue for the TCO on Linux vs MS and that is the crux of the issue. If it's a new setup can we train our people in OSS, or if we are already using MS how much to retrain for OSS compared to how much to just upgrade.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter