Jump to content

linux_learner

OTW
  • Posts

    892
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by linux_learner

  1. wrong. yast does resolve deps. yes i did have urpmi set up right. plf and cooker. and i always picked the fastest mirrors available for me. dont prejudge me. i know what i'm doing.

     

    the first time i used apt, i didnt like it much. now that i have done my homework on it (and been using suse since 9.0), i do understand. it is more powerfull.

     

    i can get all my rpms straight from yast. infact, when you do an ftp install, what program is called upon? yast. i use yast to upgrade my entire system. say for example to 9.2. i can set up yast, just like you'd set up gurpmi. infact i have it that way :P

     

    your understanding of yast is lacking.

  2. Linux_learner, you're comparing apt with rpm.

    .....

    umm no, i got that right off the apt4rpm site. check it out yourself. they did compare apt to urpmi in the faq's. so no. you are incorrect. i was talking merely about apt and the power of apt compared to urpmi. http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/ see the faq's

     

    Are there comparable applications available?

    Yes, there are: urpmi from Mandrake. For a nice comparison of all the package mngt systems have a look at the section called "APT and RPM" in the article: "An RPM port of APT". Nice to mention here, is that there is something similar for solaris as well: pkg-get or pkg-utils supporting Solaris, HP-UX, Irix, Tru64, rpm and Aix.

     

    Gowator

     

    suse doesn't have a real package management system of its own like URPMI or APT hence using apt is a great step forwards. However urpmi does resolve all deps *if* you only use mandrake RPM's.

     

    not sure what you mean here. yast is different from apt or urpmi. in order to add it to yast, you need a file that says this

    content
    directory.yast
    media.1
    RPMS
    setup

    http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/suser-guru/rpm/9.2/

     

    so to set this up in yast it would be

    http://ftp.gwdg.de

    and for dir on server

    pub/linux/misc/suser-guru/rpm/9.2/

     

    yast doesnt use hdlist like mdk.

     

    synaptic is merely the gui to apt. thats it. just like gurpmi is the gui to urpmi. one other thing to compare here, red-carpet/open-carpet. red-carpet/open-carpet is also alot like synaptic, and yes you can add sources to it as you would for synaptic. i have done this, and made red-carpet just as powerfull if not more so, than synaptic.

     

    if i were going to compare anything to rpm, it'd be deb. but since i have never successfully installed debian, then i cant compare. what i can compare is apt to urpmi. i have used urpmi, and i have used apt4rpm. aparently, yall missed what i was saying.

     

    stop and think about this for a sec. how can i compare apt to rpm, when i am on an rpm system and always have been? so obviously i am talking about apt compared to urpmi.

     

    there still is no comparison to apt. it just flat out beats urpmi.

  3. apt has alot more options than urpmi. apt is a more powerfull tool.

     

    as to your experience, 64 bit applications arent as available as 32 bit is. you can set the server for 64 bit mirrors.

     

    http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/

     

    mandrake repositories

    Mandrake

     

    Mandrake-cooker: ftp://ftp.uninett.no/pub/linux/apt

    look inside the above mentioned directory for the sources.list file.

     

    look at the features, then read the howto. faq's are good to.

     

    Why is apt better than rpm?

    On rpm based Linux systems, if you want to install a new application that requires other "dependencies" to be installed first, you have to manually install the dependencies yourself. Even supposedly easier-to-use tools such as Kpackage don't automate the process of fetching dependencies, but apt-get does so nicely.

     

    i dont want to quote the whole site. so go and read for yourself.

     

    linuxjournal says this about apt http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6672

     

    and http://www.spack.org/wiki/UsingApt?action=...edirect=AptHelp

     

    Using Apt

     

    apt-get install <package name>

     

    This will download and install the package and any other packages it requires. If other packages are required to successfully install it will prompt you for an "okay" before it actually does it.

     

    apt-get remove <package name>

     

    Removes (eg. 'dpkg -r') the package and any other packages that depend on it. If it's going to remove anything you didn't explicitly request it to it will prompt you before doing it.

     

    apt-get clean

     

    Removes all downloaded packages from /var/cache/apt/archives, this is a good housekeeping thing to do every once in a while.

     

    apt-get update

     

    Updates apt's knowledge of which packages are available. If you try and install something and get errors saying that the specified package is "not found" this is most likely the cause.

     

    apt-get upgrade

     

    This upgrades to the latest versions of all currently installed packages that are available to you (eg. if you're you have stable specified in your /etc/apt/sources.list file packages from unstable won't be available).

     

    apt-get dist-upgrade

     

    As above but this is for moving from stable to unstable. It's designed to deal more gracefully with problems that can sometimes occur with upgrades between versions (eg. the infamous libc6 upgrade which would break your system if you didn't install the new packages in a certain order).

     

    apt-cache search <string>

     

    Will show any package (and it's short description) which can be found in the packages database which matches <string> in the packages name or description.

     

    apt-cache --names-only search <string>

     

    Will show any package (and it's short description) which can be found in the packages database which matches <string> in packages name only.

     

    apt-cache show <package name>

     

    Will show all the information known about a given package.

     

    apt-get moo

     

    <shhhh> ....

     

    apt-cache showpkg <package name>

     

    This shows all package dependency information for this package, including the sometimes very useful "reverse-provides" which lists packages which depend on it.

     

    apt-get -d install <package name>

     

    Will download all requires packages to /var/cache/apt/archives but won't install them.

     

    apt-get --compile source <package name>

     

    Will download the source package and diffs and compile it into a .deb for you. this requires some of the debian packaging tool packages. You also must have a line in your /etc/apt/sources.list file similar to this:

     

    deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free

     

    apt-get -t <release> install <package name>

     

    Used in combination with the Default-Release parameter in your /etc/apt/apt.conf this allows you to list multiple releases (ie. testing and unstable) in your /etc/apt/sources.list file. You can set one as the default and then specifically install from another via this command. See the online tutorial on Apt-Pinning.

     

    console-apt or aptitude

     

    Some console based gui's for apt. They do things slightly differently then each other and are nice when you're starting out. I used to use console-apt (aka capt) but haven't used either for quite a while.

     

    apt-listchange <options>

     

    If you set this to work with apt (it'll ask you after you install it) then every time you install a package with apt it will show you what's changed from your old installed version and the newly installed version. On a production system it's often nice to see this info before you actually do the upgrade, there's a command below that will help you with that.

     

    auto-apt

     

    I only just discovered about this, it appears to automate the installation of packages on an "as needed" basis. I don't understand why and how you would do this yet. More as I play with it.

     

    It comes in handy when you ./configure; make; make install software from source. Use auto-apt run ./configure and all things the configure-script is looking for will be downloaded and installed "on-demand" an "just-in-time". To be more precise: the packages containing the missing files will be apt-get install-ed. After all you continue with make and make install as normal.

    For further reading see How to install packages "on demand" in the Apt-HOWTO and auto-apt's man-page. -- [^http://www.patrick-willam.de Patrick Willam]

     

    Acquire::http::Proxy "http://ipofproxyserver:port";

     

    Put this in your /etc/apt/apt.conf if you need to use a proxy server with apt.

     

    APT::Default-Release "testing";

     

    Put this in /etc/apt/apt.conf if you have more then one distribution selected (eg. both testing and unstable) in /etc/apt/sources.list. It can be used in combination with 'apt-get -t'.

     

    tell me urpmi can compete with that. it cant. this can be used in conjunction with urpmi. but with all this....why? as you can see there are mandrake repositories. and apt4rpm was ported and developed by conectiva. mandrake just bought conectiva.

  4. just a quick comment here. i have been using linux for 6 or 7 years, and i remember the days when i was a newbie. when i go to give help to a newbie, i try whenever i can to use the gui approach. windows users are generally more comfortable with a gui, so i show them that the things they did in windows can be done in linux pretty much the same way. just a different lay out.

     

    i had a friend over from work the other day, whom i had been telling about my linux system. when i showed him my system, i did not show him the command line. i showed him the gui. the control center and how its similar to the windows control pannel. the last thing i want to do, is scare some newbie off.

  5. i'm thinking it could be hanging on mounting the file systems (unlikely, but it can happen), or hanging on the detection of usb devices. i saw this happen with conectiva.

     

    i would disconnect all usb devices and rerun the install. see what happens. also check the md5sum of the cd.

  6. kicker, however, can be compared to the windows taskbar. i wouldnt go into the explanation of where in kicker the taskbar is until they have grasped the windows taskbar. then i'd do the similarities and differences. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default....ing/taskbar.asp

     

    also see http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/t/taskbar.htm

     

    and http://www.linux.cu/documentos/RedHat/gsg/...e60-taskbar.htm

     

    http://www.hk8.org/old_web/linux/lnut/ch16_02.htm http://docs.kde.org/en/3.3/kdebase/kicker/configuring.html http://docs.kde.org/en/3.3/kdebase/kicker/...r-settings.html

  7. Hasn't this all happened at least once in the past? What about the "kerbeous" protocol (no, I can't spell that). Didn't microsoft mis-use some open source protocol and then try to call it their own and then threaten everyone? :( .

     

    ljones

     

     

    actually yes, they have tried it. it was Kerberos. another was INS, which windows users know as WINS. how about the true type fonts? yep. true type fonts are adobe's, so i dont think its gpl'd.

  8. but linux is not as "old" as windows or mac as a desktop-system. the first serious efforts for implementing desktops began about some five or seven years ago. and without the financial backing that microsoft has, it is a very good development that is taking place and in some areas it is already ahead of windows.  B)

     

    many "users" complain that this and that does not work or needs some hacking. well, they are right but once the system runs, it is usually more stable than windows (my experience). but look at windows forums. they also have lots (!) of topics concerning apps not running properly or hardware that is buggy. so saying "linux doesn't work" is not fair. every os has its strenghts and weaknesses and it needs some time to adjust things in order to make the migration as painless as possible.

     

     

     

     

    actually linux has been arround since windows 3.1 multi-media (1991). it did have X and some WM's, but nothing like today. rpm's and linuxconf hadnt been developed yet. certainly no urpmi, apt, emerge or what not had not been developed.

     

    linux has made some real efforts in the past five years to become more user friendly. back in 1991 and until recently alot of gui tools were either not available or hadnt been developed. today we have yast, or mcc, whatever your distro uses (similar to the windows control panel).

     

    i suppose the hard part in linux can be gettting things to "work". most often its a config script. thats the bigest hurdle for windows users to cross. that and dependancies. (which is why apt, urpmi, emerge and so on make a huge difference).

  9. i got my start over some five years ago. at that time i was relatively new to windows. crashing it regularly due to user error. i hadnt even heard of NT, and didnt know what NTFS was. all i knew was DOS, win3.1, win95, win98. even then i was into security. wanting to know how to secure my machine, even though i knew nothing about viruses, spyware, worms, and trojans.

     

    a guy at work was into linux and introduced me to linux. i would see it running on his machine, and i thought it was cool. (i also used to pronounce gnome as G-nome (hard G)). i went out and bought slackware 7.1. found out later that that wasnt a n00by friendly distro. i did end up calling tech support for help with the install, only to find out i was making it to complicated.

     

    i did end up going back to windows (ME). then i tried mdk, and a whole bunch of others. but back then there was no urpmi. no apt, yum, swarget, emerge and so on. so chasing down deps was a real nightmare, and a good way to hose your system. so again i went back to windows (XP).

     

    my wife had been watching me, and yes i was trying to convert her (even though i didnt know what the hell i was doing). she had determined linux was to hard. it was windows itself that actually converted her. she got tired of windows acting the way it does. she got so tired of it, she considered learning programming so she could program windows to do what she wanted. then she found out windows is closed source. she said "get me into linux!". i was so surprised, i held off for 3 days. then set up a dual boot system. we rarely went into windows, and finally windows just died. now we're straight linux.

  10. er, that's just from the GET requests crafted by the browser, NOT from any covert scanning done by the server - it means you (your browser) sent that info. Sure, they give a lot of information, like screen res and all, but servers NEED such info to display webpages properly...but the OS and the like isn't needed...you can probably disable these in Firefox, i'll look into it.

     

     

    yeah i know, but still freaky your browser gives that much out.

  11. I have a Netgear router/firewall - the following should prove useful if you want an idea of how secure you are. This is taken from one of the support pages.

     

     

      Here are three programs to test if your router or computer's ports are secure. The first gives the simplest "good / bad" results.

     

      Symantec Security Check (Once on the page, click Start under "Security Scan".)

     

    Gibson Research Corporation (On the page, scroll down, and click ShieldsUP!)

     

      Sygate Online Services (On the page, click Scan Now.)

     

        Since these programs are concerned with any possible threat, they may report things that are in practice usually safe. For example, although the Sygate and Gibson sites note ports that are not "stealthy", in practice ports that are "just" closed are usually quite secure. 

     

     

    the symatec site only scans windows (makes sense ya know). the other two are good though.

     

    here is one that may freak you out a bit. http://browsercheck.qualys.com/index.php if you wish to attempt the tests, like a cookie test, then you'll need to change your user agent to IE 6 on winXP.

     

    heres the results of mine with my UA set to IE 6:

     

      Browser Info: 

     

     

    Type:  Microsoft Internet Explorer

    Version:  IE6

    Browser Language:  undefined

    Cookies:  true

    Java:  true

     

     

     

      JavaScript and Engine Info: 

     

     

    JavaScript Version:  1.3

    Script Engines Version: 

    IE 4/5/6 Script Engines: 

     

     

     

      Browser History: 

     

     

    Sites visited in this window:  10

     

     

     

      System Overview: 

     

     

    Platform:  Win32

    OS:  WinXP

    CPU Class:  undefined

    IP Address:  *********

    Host Name:  *********

    System Language:  undefined

    User Language:  undefined

    System Time:  Thu Jan 06 2005 17:19:13 GMT-0700 (MST)

     

     

     

      Display Settings: 

     

     

    Resolution:  1024X768

    Max Window Size:  966X722

    Color Depth:  16 bit

     

    i edited out the ip address. the results are similar under linux. it just cant hack linux :thumbs:

  12. this isnt a question of mandrake security. as mandrake is linux. there are a number of things that can be done to tighten security. a good rule of thumb is, turn off any services you dont need. i did write a "linux security overview" in the FAQ section of this site. give that a look and you'll understand alot more.

     

    linux isnt like windows. to go into more detail, i might as well write a thesis. the security overview will give you some good information though. how deep you want to go is up to you.

×
×
  • Create New...