|
deimos posted:Get Ubuntu or Fedora, this forum (and myself) lean towards Ubuntu. You don't learn Linux installing either of those things.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2007 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
covener posted:debian and ubuntu packaging of Apache is pretty awful... Mind backing up this assertion? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2007 18:15
|
|
|
I'm now trying to understand user quotas in order to give my brother no more than 5 GB of space on /home. My searches led me to this Arch Linux wiki entry. It seems pretty straight-forward but I'm curious: if I want my brother to have only 5 GB allocated and the rest given to me, do I need to set up a zeroed-out quota for myself or can I just let it go? Smackbilly posted:Although it seems you fixed your problem, the way to give write permissions to 1 or more users who are not the owner is to create a group, put the users who should have write permissions into that group, assign group ownership of the directory to that group, and then give the directory group write permissions. If you need anything more fine-grained than that, you need to look into ACLs. Ah, I see. That makes sense. Fortunately, I'm the only one who needs write permissions at the moment but I'll remember this if I need someone else managing this particular directory. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2007 18:33
|
|
|
bitprophet posted:Mind backing up this assertion? You wouldn't believe the number of people who can't follow simple tried-and-true instructions because of the config file hierarchy/cruft used in the debian packaging. This is conventional wisdom in #apache on freenode code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2007 18:43
|
|
|
covener posted:You wouldn't believe the number of people who can't follow simple tried-and-true instructions because of the config file hierarchy/cruft used in the debian packaging. I don't really see how either of those are "bad", though. As someone who does know how to configure Apache fairly well, I think the whole [sites|mods]-[enabled|available] setup makes things modular and easier to manage, without being overly contrived - it's simply breaking things out into separate config files and using symlinks to determine which ones are picked up when Apache starts. Very similar to the /etc/init.d/ + /etc/rcN.d/ initscript setup. Sure, it's simpler to have everything in one or two main Apache config files (if that's what you're arguing for; it's not clear what you think the ideal Apache setup is), but that also doesn't scale as well as Debian's layout does. I personally think it's swell that one can test out different virtual host configurations without having to bulk-comment lines in apache2.conf, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2007 22:22
|
|
|
bitprophet posted:I don't really see how either of those are "bad", though. As someone who does know how to configure Apache fairly well The layout (and other packaging issues) creates a support bubble, and there's evidence of it every day in user support forums. Adding a layer between the user and the configuration seems to hurt too (especially when they're often not traditional sysadmins, like a lot of people who consume/configure Apache) For context, I make a living developing and supporting Apache for $bigco. I'm an Apache committer and I donate personal time to the user support forums (users@httpd and IRC). I've also been a Debian user for 7 years, so I don't have an axe to grind on that side either. To summarize, cutting your teeth on apache via debian could fill your head with a considerable number of debian-isms instead of apache-isms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 01:20
|
|
|
covener posted:To summarize, cutting your teeth on apache via debian could fill your head with a considerable number of debian-isms instead of apache-isms. I can definitely agree with that (although all the mainstream distros fiddle with packages, it seems - even Arch, which is normally pretty vanilla, compiles Apache with the "RedHat" directory option which looks pretty alien to me). So is your only real beef with the Debian /etc/apache2 layout that it differs so markedly from the Apache norm as to create support headaches (which I can understand)? Or is there something else too that makes it less than ideal? I guess that's what I've been trying to drive at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 02:07
|
|
|
Accipiter posted:You don't learn Linux installing either of those things. So using Linux is a bad way to learn Linux. Hm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 02:20
|
|
|
bitprophet posted:So is your only real beef with the Debian /etc/apache2 layout that it differs so markedly from the Apache norm as to create support headaches (which I can understand)? Or is there something else too that makes it less than ideal? I guess that's what I've been trying to drive at. When you wrap this stuff too much, users think checking "ports.conf" shows them what ports apache will listen on, and a module is being used when they've run the proper commands in /usr/sbin. Sure, it's trivial for you and I to recognize there are only so many contexts these files get Include'ed into then you're back to basics, but not your typical user seeking help on #apache (believe it or not) I do appreciate that the beef is mostly a nitpick, but recall the context of getting ones feet wet with Apache; similiar to how people recommend against ubuntu/gnome when you're trying to get a feel for linux
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 02:36
|
|
|
For some reason I don't have owner privileges on my ubuntu account. I tried to make a directory writable but I can't and it says I need owner privileges. I am the only user on the machine. It there a way to give myself owner privileges or do I need to make a new account?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 03:46
|
|
|
Accipiter posted:You don't learn Linux installing either of those things. He literally asked what distro to use. Tap posted:Which is the best distro to get the best of both worlds?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 03:55
|
|
|
Anonymity Returns posted:For some reason I don't have owner privileges on my ubuntu account. I tried to make a directory writable but I can't and it says I need owner privileges. I am the only user on the machine. It there a way to give myself owner privileges or do I need to make a new account? I'm assuming that this isn't on an external drive, but is just a directory in your /home folder. If its a removeable drive you probably just need to mount it with the user flag. Open up the terminal and navigate to the parent of the offending directory. So if the folder is /home/Col/files/denied/ do the following: code:code:code:To take ownership of the folder, just the chown command (CHangeOWNership) as follows: code:If you still can't access it, then (now you're the owner) you can change permissions: code:Note that if you're trying to write outside of your /home directory this may not be a good idea - your access is probably restricted by default for security reasons and changing the ownership of a system file may break something. You may wish to try having a look at a guide, perhaps here or here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 11:21
|
|
|
Accipiter posted:You don't learn Linux installing either of those things. You don't learn Linux by installing anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 16:36
|
|
|
What the flying gently caress happened to gentoos packages database? Previously it was a nicely laid out page with a very handy searchbox where you could search for individual packages. Now it's just an abortion of what it previously was. Does anyone know how to use that drat page (I don't consider browsing by category as an option), or even better, if there's an search tool for packages available somewhere on the gentoo.org site? I am aware of using /package/packagename - that is not what I want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 19:47
|
|
|
Marinmo posted:What the flying gently caress happened to gentoos packages database? Previously it was a nicely laid out page with a very handy searchbox where you could search for individual packages. Now it's just an abortion of what it previously was. Does anyone know how to use that drat page (I don't consider browsing by category as an option), or even better, if there's an search tool for packages available somewhere on the gentoo.org site? Big security flaw on their site, but that was a long time ago now. I'm surprised it's still down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 20:39
|
|
|
Col posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 21:09
|
|
|
How do you open up ports on your local host, I'm trying to run gpsd and seeing if it works with our GPS system. Does anyone have experience with gpsd?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 21:23
|
|
|
sund posted:Big security flaw on their site, but that was a long time ago now. I'm surprised it's still down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 22:47
|
|
|
Marinmo posted:drat that sucks. Well, now I at least know why. Wonder how hard it could be to code a proper search function and why noone has done it yet. http://www.gentoo-portage.com That is all you need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2007 08:05
|
|
Associate Christ
|
teapot posted:So I was finally able to try it all out. It worked, thank you! I just have a few questions do you still want the output of dmesg? what do you think caused it not to work in the first place? will I need to do anything special when/if I upgrade ndiswrapper or the kernel?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2007 17:34
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:So I was finally able to try it all out. It worked, thank you! I just have a few questions quote:what do you think caused it not to work in the first place? code:Alternatively you can switch to the packaged version of ndiswrapper -- if it doesn't support your driver now, it will likely do so in the next packaged release. To do so, from source directory run "sudo make uninstall" and install the packages that you have removed ("apt-get remove --purge" line) before -- you will be able to configure packaged ndiswrapper in the same way as you configured when it was compiled from sources, except since that point package manager will keep track of upgrades for kernel and ndiswrapper. I think, it's becoming the most frequently asked question: Q: "I have installed {ndiswrapper|nvidia driver|other driver} from tarball, and it breaks" A: "Remove the packaged version and repeat the procedure". Maybe it will make sense to make some "installation sanity check" procedure that detects such duplicates? Edit: clarified the reinstallation part. teapot fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Dec 17, 2007 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2007 12:47
|
|
|
I'm having a bad sysadmin day  Is there some way to setup Samba users without having to create them as linux users? Further fun, I have to do it from the command line because the VNC server is ghetto. EDIT: guess not. Looks like Samba depends on the info from /etc/passwd. boo. coconono fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Dec 17, 2007 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2007 15:25
|
|
|
Does anyone know know to take Ubuntu out of a dual boot system??? I've done it before but it was a bit of trouble to pop in a grub CD to remove the grub boot loader... any thoughts???
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2007 23:08
|
|
|
coconono posted:I'm having a bad sysadmin day Well, that answered a question I had much earlier (doesn't pertain to anything anymore though). Thanks for the info anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2007 23:51
|
|
|
Nerf Herder posted:Does anyone know know to take Ubuntu out of a dual boot system??? I've done it before but it was a bit of trouble to pop in a grub CD to remove the grub boot loader... any thoughts??? Reinstall whatever MBR you had before. If it's Windows, use Windows CD in rescue mode and run fixmbr.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2007 00:54
|
|
|
Skype is giving me a hard time detecting the public ips of users I am connecting to. My Wireshark skills are basic, and so far I have not found a good way to filter for Skype packets to begin with, let alone find an ip of the person I am talking or chatting with. I am currently just capturing random parts of traffic and tried to narrow down the possible packets by telling Skype in the preferences to use the port 45429, but it does not give me any good information. It connects to hundreds of different Skype clients it seems, and these relay the information to my conversation partner. But at some point (conversation start?) Skype will do some kind of initiation package or something I can use, right? ...right?  
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2007 02:40
|
|
|
How is writing to NTFS in Linux these days? I see on their website that it's considered "safe" now, but does anyone have any practical experience doing it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 00:06
|
|
|
deadEd posted:How is writing to NTFS in Linux these days? I see on their website that it's considered "safe" now, but does anyone have any practical experience doing it? Yeah, I do it a fair bit (my music lives on an NTFS partition), not had any problems thus far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 00:14
|
|
|
deadEd posted:How is writing to NTFS in Linux these days? I see on their website that it's considered "safe" now, but does anyone have any practical experience doing it? Echoing ribena, I have had no problems at all with ntfs-3g.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 01:34
|
|
|
coconono posted:I'm having a bad sysadmin day Edit: Just realized I answered a question totally different from the one you asked
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 01:44
|
|
|
This is a very stupid question but is ubuntu server all command line? I downloaded what I thought was ubuntu server but it has a gui and a lot of little free games which I thought was strange for a server version. I think maybe the mirror I downloaded it from mislabeled it. Does anyone know for sure is the server version is all gui?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 01:57
|
|
|
Anonymity Returns posted:This is a very stupid question but is ubuntu server all command line? I downloaded what I thought was ubuntu server but it has a gui and a lot of little free games which I thought was strange for a server version. I think maybe the mirror I downloaded it from mislabeled it. Does anyone know for sure is the server version is all gui? In my recollection, yea, the server CD's default install option does not install any GUI environments unless you ask it to, so you probably got a mislabeled download. One way to tell is to pop in the CD again and see if it offers a LAMP server option - AFAIK that option is only on the server disks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 03:47
|
|
|
bitprophet posted:In my recollection, yea, the server CD's default install option does not install any GUI environments unless you ask it to, so you probably got a mislabeled download. One way to tell is to pop in the CD again and see if it offers a LAMP server option - AFAIK that option is only on the server disks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 10:21
|
|
|
I have an old iBook G4 at work with the 500mhz or so processer. I put Xubuntu on it but it didn't seem all that fast. Is there a distro I could use to make it really fast. All I need it for obvisouly is surfing and Abiword and a couple of other basic programs. It doesn't have to be pretty, just functional and unbloated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 14:51
|
|
|
Oldsmobile posted:I have an old iBook G4 at work with the 500mhz or so processer. I put Xubuntu on it but it didn't seem all that fast. Arch or Zen have always been nice and fast for me. If you're comfortable with Debian-based distros, then a minimal Debian install with fluxbox will be lightning fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 15:11
|
|
|
Oldsmobile posted:Is there a distro I could use to make it really fast. All I need it for obvisouly is surfing and Abiword and a couple of other basic programs. Try out some of the really lightweight window-managers. Despite being Gentoo specific, this page is a pretty good introduction to most of the common ones regardless of what distribution you use. I'd recommend Fluxbox, or EvilWM if you really want to get rid of all the trimmings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 15:18
|
|
|
openbox is pretty nice and minimal as well
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 16:28
|
|
|
One problem is that your limiting factor will not be the WM but the applications; those are never going to be any faster/slower regardless of the desktop environment, really. For example, I used to run Linux on high end PIIs and while Fluxbox/fvwm2 ran super fast, Firefox (Phoenix back then  ) was a snail. A 500MHz G4 isn't a whole lot faster than what I was using.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2007 16:53
|
|
|
I wanted to know if there is a way, short of installing Cygwin, that I can execute remote batch script on a Windows 2003 Server from my RHEL 4 shell? I would rather not install Cygwin just for this, but the other alternative is to install X, install the oracle client and turn the batch script into a bash script. If the only way is Cygwin then I really don't have a problem (hopefully the client won't either!) installing it and using it, but it would be nice if I didn't have to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2007 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
citizenh8 posted:I wanted to know if there is a way, short of installing Cygwin, that I can execute remote batch script on a Windows 2003 Server from my RHEL 4 shell? I would rather not install Cygwin just for this, but the other alternative is to install X, install the oracle client and turn the batch script into a bash script. not sure what windows facilities need to be running on the host for sysinternals 'psexec' to work, but it might be something to look into. edit: durf, of course that's a solution only for windows on both ends. Bad choices: services for unix probably provides telnetd, or a native windows/commercial SSH server
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2007 01:08
|
|