Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???
From: Giorgos Keramidas (keramida_at_ceid.upatras.gr)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:30:52 +0300 To: DK <email@example.com>
On 2004-07-28 09:27, DK <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
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.
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:
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 -
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
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 someone can easily point to a couple of
manpages, a link on the web, somewhere and clear things up for you in a
> 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.
This is what I noticed lately too. My firewall log includes stuff like:
: 22:47:27.311269 tun0 @0:23 b 126.96.36.199,3625 -> 188.8.131.52,135 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN
: 22:47:30.281009 tun0 @0:23 b 184.108.40.206,3625 -> 220.127.116.11,135 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN
: 22:47:32.258850 tun0 @0:23 b 18.104.22.168,3625 -> 22.214.171.124,135 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN
: 22:48:12.147590 tun0 @0:23 b 126.96.36.199,3397 -> 188.8.131.52,135 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN
: 22:48:15.641299 tun0 @0:23 b 184.108.40.206,3397 -> 220.127.116.11,135 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN
These are 5 blocked attempts to connect in less than 50 seconds! Less
than 10 seconds between attempts to break in. A very solid proof of the
sad state that thousands of Windows machines are in and a very good
reason why you *SHOULD* try to stick with BSD. Even if just for the
sake of curiosity about ways to work free of this nonsense that the
Windows world has to tolerate.
> Specifically, its the ./configure business of the different
> installations & the pedantic order which to install the different
> Apache modules etc..
All this and more has been kindly taken care of by the FreeBSD port
maintainers. The FreeBSD ports is one of the reasons why I am
thoroughly and firmly avoiding to accept anything less than a flexible,
extensible, configurable, solid as rock installation system now.
Half-assed implementations of "inline" installer wizards that require me
to click on silly knobs and buttons is no longer considered "cool" here.
The FreeBSD ports have played a major role in making this a reality.
> 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" ??
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
You're not using the mysql ports though. It's obvious, because if you
were the databases/mysql-40-server port would take care of all this
automatically for you.
> I just don't see the point of compiling each program from source.
The Handbook chapter on ``Ports & Packages'' is once more your friend.
To quote parts of that chapter:
: Package Benefits
: * A compressed package tarball is typically smaller than the compressed
: tarball containing the source code for the application.
: * Packages do not require any additional compilation. For large
: applications, such as Mozilla, KDE, or GNOME this can be important,
: particularly if you are on a slow system.
: * Packages do not require any understanding of the process involved in
: compiling software on FreeBSD.
: Ports Benefits
: * Packages are normally compiled with conservative options, because they
: have to run on the maximum number of systems. By installing from the
: port, you can tweak the compilation options to (for example) generate
: code that is specific to a Pentium IV or Athlon processor.
: * Some applications have compile time options relating to what they can and
: cannot do. For example, Apache can be configured with a wide variety of
: different built-in options. By building from the port you do not have to
: accept the default options, and can set them yourself.
: In some cases, multiple packages will exist for the same application to
: specify certain settings. For example, Ghostscript is available as a
: ghostscript package and a ghostscript-nox11 package, depending on whether
: or not you have installed an X11 server. This sort of rough tweaking is
: possible with packages, but rapidly becomes impossible if an application
: has more than one or two different compile time options.
: * The licensing conditions of some software distributions forbid binary
: distribution. They must be distributed as source code.
: * Some people do not trust binary distributions. At least with source code,
: you can (in theory) read through it and look for potential problems
: * If you have local patches, you will need the source in order to apply
: * Some people like having code around, so they can read it if they get
: bored, hack it, borrow from it (license permitting, of course), and so
You've obviously missed this part, if you have read the Handbook at all.
This is, unfortunately, more saddening than cursing and swearing about
the stupidity of FreeBSD, because it means that my efforts and the
efforts of all the members of the FreeBSD documentation team are
(at least as far as you are concerned) in vain :-/
> 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
This is one of the reasons why installing from source is more flexible
than precompiled binaries. When you build from source, it is *YOU* who
decides which features to include and not someone who built binaries of
some packages a year back, when your RELEASE was cut to a CD-ROM image.
 When I say "from source" I'm referring to using the /usr/ports
infrastructure for installing programs, not downloading random tarballs
and furtively running uncomprehensible streams of commands in a
fruitless attempt to "Just Make it Work"(TM).
> 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...
No. Because tweaking the build *before* parts of the programs are
included that you'll never use results in smaller executables, faster
load times, less bloat and generally in a more pleasing, warm & fuzzy
sense of satisfaction when you've managed to shape the things the way
you want instead of them shaping you to match their own idea of what you
should do and how ;-)
> then manually chmod because for some reason, even though I am logged
> in as root, all files are not by default excute/write accessable
There's a reason for that. Never underestimate the extra security the
UNIX way of "disallowing everything and then explicitly allowing only
what needs to be done" provides!
> 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
Well, you could have read the Handbook before installing too. Why
you didn't is beyond me.
That's ok though. There are many ways to install a BSD system. One of
them is the one I like. Another is the one you like. The good thing is
that we can both use the one we prefer without forcing the other one to
become something he isn't.
You can always read the Handbook now, and see if it helps a bit with
configuring a firewall, setting up your network connection, or doing
anything else you need. As always, I'll point that if you find anything
wrong, misleading, or plainly confusing about the Handbook me and the
rest of the FreeBSD Documentation Team will be glad to know your
comments, suggestions and/or complaints. If your suggestions seem
sensible we'll also be glad to modify & improve the documentation.
> I tried that first & when that didn't work, I went to the ports. When
> that failed, I went to the Packages. When that failed.... I became Mr
The fact that the ports work for thousands of people means that you've
probably missed something along the way or are in some way confused.
There is absolutely no need to be grumpy, but I can't help you with
that. I've provided links and pointers to the documentation of FreeBSD
more times than I have ever done until now, but there's no sign that
you're making any use of the docs.
> 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?
> I got fvwm2 to run. How to get it to look like a Windows 2000/XP set
> up... I could NOT get it to work!! I D/L the files below but could not
> install them (can't work out where they are supposed to go ???)
> "fvwm2 configured to look very much like Windows XP"
> screenshot - http://xwinman.org/screenshots/fvwm2-horen.jpg
> configuration files - http://xwinman.org/screenshots/fvwm2-config-horen.tar.gz
> icons - http://xwinman.org/screenshots/fvwm2-icons-horen.tar.gz
THAT'S IT !!!
This is the theme I was talking about. I only found out about it last
night and were amazed by the flexibility of fvwm2 for even allowing such
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 ;-)
> > 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
"I mastered" is, I bet, an exaggeration here, but I'll let it pass.
I'm sure you didn't install mail, web, ftp, irc and connection sharing
servers on Windows 95 in just one day. At least not if you practically
had nil experience with the system.
> > That's because you're still bound to old habits. I have no use for
> > slow, GUI monsters that require me to point and click for every little
> > detail of what I want to do.
> MS GUI's shows more detailed information to me than simple cmd line
> responses for info .. not sure how you see Windows 2000 Explorer as
I'm a fast typist. I can quickly type "ps | more" and have an overview
of the processes my systems runs. The equivalent in Windows is:
1. Move mouse over program/start bar.
2. Find a free area, uncluttered by the title of some window.
3. Click right mouse button.
4. Wait until menu pops up.
5. Move pointer to "Task manager" menu item.
6. Click left mouse button.
7. Wait until task manager pops up.
8. Click "processes" tab in the dialog.
9. Wait until the list gets updated.
10. Click on appropriate column to sort.
This is a huge list of things to do when compared to just:
1. Type "ps | more"
2. Hit RETURN.
Take this to its extreme, namely file operations on many dozens of
files, and the point-click-drag-and-wait interface is honestly, at least
for me, a real pain in the ass.
This is, of course, my personal opinion, which you are not obliged to
share. I just thought I'd mention it to show why I feel reluctant to
believe that you found FreeBSD slower than Windows.
> 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
If it all works as expected this shouldn't say anything at all. If you
are, indeed, seeing something it's probably an indication of some error,
which means nothing was mounted.
> but when I go into xfe.. I cannot see a floppy directory with files ???
> ... any hints at to what could be wrong ???
Try changing the current directory to /mnt and see what files are in
that directory. Are they the floppy contents?
> > > - 300 Million Users of Windows thinks so ;)) (BTW: I am NOT
> > > including KDE/GNOME)
> > Honestly, I'd be very curious to see where you got that number from.
> Read it in a Forbes article.. but a gestimate would be:
> USA/Canada 90 Million
> Europe 90 Million
> China 30 Million
> India 30 Million
> Rest of Asia 10
> Russia 25 Million
> Rest Eastern Countries 25 Million
Is it available online? Any chance we could have a link to that?
> 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.
> I read the installation chapter then:
> 2 FreeBSD Books I have +
> FreeBSD Documentation
> ? FAQ
> ? Handbook
> ? Manual pages
> ? For Newbies +
All this in just 6 days? Or do you mean that you've read all this
during the past few months and now you've finally tried to install
FreeBSD but failed?
> I don't want a bloated desktop install like KDE(see beginning email)
That's ok. I don't either ;-)
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "firstname.lastname@example.org"