OpenBSD or FreeBSD?

[Bully_Crist]

I certainly hope this doesn't look too lame, but I'm interested in learning how to use a Unix-ish OS, and I was wondering as to where would be a good idea to start; I've heard that both OpenBSD and FreeBSD will run Linux stuff (in a sort-of emulation mode), so I suspect that I can get away with that bit...

but, as a newbie to the whole unix/linux thing, I was wondering if y'all had any particular recommendations for this or not... (since I have some expendable hardware, I figure I might just take a few whacks at this and see what happens)

any help is certainly appreciated... :p

[jemfinch]

If you're on x86 hardware, go with FreeBSD.

No, I'm not going to bother supporting my statement, because it'll just lead to an argument.

Someone else can post "Go with OpenBSD!" and I won't care.

Jeremy

[freebsd]

>> I'm not going to bother supporting my statement, because it'll just lead to an argument

Perhaps the flame war has finally begun?

>> as a newbie to the whole unix/linux thing

You should have better luck with Linux.

>> I figure I might just take a few whacks at this and see what happens

Good, go for FreeBSD, there's no reason to pressure yourself and take on OpenBSD at this moment since you said you are a newbie to the UNIX world.

>> Someone else can post "Go with OpenBSD!" and I won't care

I won't care either but I wonder who would suggest a newbie to go for OpenBSD.

[Gnu/Vince]

Try 'em both. I did. And I settled my choice on OpenBSD.

[ 13 March 2001: Message edited by: wmHardRock ]

[Bully_Crist]

hmmmm... does OpenBSD work with the Ports packaging system? it seems to me that OpenBSD is more of the BSD that's runs on everything (and is very, very secure)... I'll try out FreeBSD first, though...

(one question: on installing FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, does it give you the option of sticking KDE or Gnome, or something on there? I'd be like a kid riding a bike sans training wheels if I couldn't get on the net to ask for assistance)

[Golden_Eternity]

You can get OpenBSD to use ports just like FreeBSD. I haven't spent much time using the BSD's, but as I recall, I first had to set up CVS then use that to install the ports... There's documentation on the oBSD web site, I believe.

Just remember that when you change *anything* on your oBSD system, you're no longer using that "secure by default" system everyone raves about.

G_E

[ 13 March 2001: Message edited by: Golden_Eternity ]

[Gnu/Vince]

Originally posted by Bully_Crist:
hmmmm... does OpenBSD work with the Ports packaging system? it seems to me that OpenBSD is more of the BSD that's runs on everything (and is very, very secure)... I'll try out FreeBSD first, though...

(one question: on installing FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, does it give you the option of sticking KDE or Gnome, or something on there? I'd be like a kid riding a bike sans training wheels if I couldn't get on the net to ask for assistance)

OpenBSD: VERY VERY VERY Secure. Installs on about 8-10 platforms. Can use ports just like FreeBSD.

NetBSD: Will install on more than 30 different architectures.

FreeBSD: runs on i386 and Alpha's. More apps than the other two's and is more performant.

[Bully_Crist]

alright... I'm gonna check out FreeBSD...and Debian (I don't want to hear ANYTHING about that)... I'll just see which one works best for me...

(is it possible to install Debian with just the first cd and make it get the packages off the net?)

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by Bully_Crist:
(is it possible to install Debian with just the first cd and make it get the packages off the net?)

yes, or you can even just load the base from floppies (17 or sometimes only 6) and then pull everything from internet

have fun! :)

[freebsd]

>> alright... I'm gonna check out FreeBSD

Don't forget to check out http://bsdvault.net/ and http://www.openBSDpost.net/

[cdburgess75]

Originally posted by wmHardRock:
Try 'em both.

[ 13 March 2001: Message edited by: wmHardRock ]

good answer

[Bully_Crist]

is there any particular way to hunt down security patches for these distros (FreeBSD + Debian) without scrounging around through 7 months of news archives?

[freebsd]

>> hunt down security patches

Track the -STABLE branch for FreeBSD ->
ftp://releng4.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/i386/4.2-20010313-STABLE/

At the end of this month, cvsup and upgrade to 4.3-STABLE.

[ 14 March 2001: Message edited by: freebsd ]

[GuruWannabe]

Originally posted by Bully_Crist:
(one question: on installing FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, does it give you the option of sticking KDE or Gnome, or something on there? I'd be like a kid riding a bike sans training wheels if I couldn't get on the net to ask for assistance)

Yes and no. You can have whatever window manager you want, but it won't be installed by default. You'll either have to install it from the CD (post-installation configuration) or build it from the port. In the meantime, twm is installed by default, so you can use that if you need to get on the net. BTW, Netscape isn't installed by default either, so don't forget that.

[freebsd]

>> BTW, Netscape isn't installed by default either, so don't forget that.

Perhaps saying X isn't installed by default sounds a bit more clear?

[Gnu/Vince]

Originally posted by freebsd:
>> BTW, Netscape isn't installed by default either, so don't forget that.

Perhaps saying X isn't installed by default sounds a bit more clear?

Doesn't it depend upon the type of installation you do? And I for one think that no X is good.

[Sauron]

I haven't tried OpenBSD, but I do have FreeBSD 4.0 Powerpack, and it literally rocks. I would HIGHLY suggest getting The Complete FreeBSD by Greg Lehey should you decide to try FreeBSD. However, if you don't wanna shell out $$ for the book, you can find a lot of info at FreeBSD.org (http://www.freebsd.org)

[Coral Sea]

Just starting using FreeBSD and it's great except for one thing. With FreeBSD as the NFS server, I can't connect from a Linux client. Keep getting permission denied error messages. Has anyone encountered this problem? If so, did you get NFS working?

I followed the NFS instructions in the handbook exactly (as far as I can tell).

[freebsd]

Show us your showmount -a hostname (replace hostname with the real hostname on your FreeBSD box).

Then show us your /etc/exports

[Coral Sea]

Showmount -a localhost comes up empty, but, if I understand what that means correctly, that's not the problem (I can mount a Linux [2.2.17] share on the FreeBSD box). Also, showmount -e localhost comes up empty, too!

The /etc/exports file has one line:

/Data_2 -alldirs Office TV1

where Office and TV1 are the two client machines that are defined in /etc/hosts. I can ping both machines by their hostnames, so the hostname is being resolved.

Slightly different syntax but same methodology works for me with Linux 2.2.17 kernels. Oddly, I get the same permission denied errors with Linux 2.4.2 as the NFS server (although, based on what I've read so far, sounds like NFS is slightly off in 2.4.X).

Would appreciate any insights you could offer, freebsd. :)

[freebsd]

If /Data_2 is a symlink, it won't work.
What I meant hostname is the real hostname, not localhost.

Do this to get the hostname of your FreeBSD box:

# cat /etc/rc.conf | grep hostname

Then on your Linux machine, run:

# showmount -a the_hostname_of_your_FreeBSD_box

[Coral Sea]

Running showmount -a from the Linux box for the FreeBSD server comes up empty, as follows:

All mount points on gateway:

Running cat | grep on the FreeBSD box yields:

gateway_enable="YES" (because my FreeBSD hostname is gateway)

/Data_2 is not a symlink, it's the directory name.

Also, the FreeBSD box is my Internet gateway so it has two NICs.

I used the following in rc.conf:

portmap_enable="YES"
nfs_server_enable="YES"
nfs_server_flags="-u -t -h dc1 -n 4"
mountd_flags="-r"
nfs_client_enable="YES"
nfs_client_flags="-n 4"

dc1 is the internal NIC.

All other networking works okay, no, great (Samba, ssh, telnet, FTP) on the LAN and things are perfect Internet-wise. Just this little nagging NFS problem....

Thanks for the help so far. I appreciate it.

[Coral Sea]

Actually, I've solved my NFS problems by using Samba and Sharity Light. Everything is now neatly tied together no matter which operating system is running on any of the boxes (any combo of FreeBSD, Linux, Win98 and Win2k). Another patron of this Web site suggested some time ago that it was easier to just use Samba for everything. I should have listened to him then (that's one point for you Craig ;)).

[freebsd]

>> I used the following in rc.conf

All you needed is to add the following in your /etc/rc.conf:

nfs_server_enable="YES"
nfs_client_enable="YES"

You don't need to redefine these:

portmap_enable="YES"
nfs_client_flags="-n 4"
mountd_flags="-r"

they are already defined in /etc/defaults/rc.conf.

As for nfs_server_flags="-u -t -h dc1 -n 4",
you don't need to specify -h dc1. Just accept the default in /etc/defaults/rc.conf.

Plus your /etc/hosts file and /etc/exports (they seem to be properly configured), that's all that you needed to configure your FreeBSD box as a NFS Server.

>> Running showmount -a from the Linux box for the FreeBSD server comes up empty

Say your /etc/hosts file (FreeBSD box) looks as follow:

127.0.0.1 localhost
12.34.56.78 freebsd.yourdomain.com freebsd
192.168.0.1 router.yourdomain.com router
192.168.0.2 linux.yourdomain.com linux
192.168.0.3 redhat.yourdomain.com redhat
192.168.0.4 win98.yourdomain.com win98

/etc/exports:

/Data_2 -alldirs linux redhat

Then run showmount -a router #not freebsd
from your Linux box. It should return this:

All mount points on router:
linux.yourdomain.com:/Data_2
redhat.yourdomain.com:/Data_2

then you can mount it from your Linux with this: (manually)

mount -t nfs /Data_2 /path/to/this/dir/must/exist/no/symlink

To automount at boot, put this in your /etc/fstab:

router:/Data_2 /path/to/this/dir/must/exist/no/symlink nfs rw 0 0

>> I've solved my NFS problems by using Samba and Sharity Light

You never solved your NFS problem, samba is just one of your alternatives. You still learned nothing about NFS.

>> Everything is now neatly tied together no matter which operating system is running

You wanted to tie every OS (M$) together, then it would be best to stick with Samba and Sharity Light (very buggy + file locking very poor).

>> I should have listened to him then

Yes you should. But if you are ready to try NFS and having problems still, be sure to go to http://bsdvault.net

[jemfinch]

Originally posted by Coral Sea:
Another patron of this Web site suggested some time ago that it was easier to just use Samba for everything. I should have listened to him then (that's one point for you Craig ;)).

Does Samba support UNIX permissions?

Jeremy

[Bully_Crist]

did someone hijack my thread?

:mad:

[Coral Sea]

Ya, BC, I guess we hijacked your thread. Sorry, it was totally unintentional.

FreeBSD, I tried NFS real simple (as you indicated) and real complex (a la the NFS documentation in the handbook and the man pages) and the results were the same.

Samba works for me. The permissions are controlled differently than with NFS although I haven't fiddled around with it enough to properly answer the UNIX permissions question. With the smb.conf file, though, you can pretty much decide who has what kind of access to which shares.

All I can say is if you can't get NFS working between FreeBSD (server) and Linux (client), try Samba (and Sharity Light if you want to mount Winblows shares on your FreeBSD server). That's what I did and I'm out of the woods now. :D

[BioHaze]

OpenBSD rocks Woohoo!!!

[Gnu/Vince]

Originally posted by BioHaze:
OpenBSD rocks Woohoo!!!

One question: is there a canadian-french keymap? And does it work properly?

[Craig McPherson]

Originally posted by jemfinch:
Does Samba support UNIX permissions?

Jeremy

The Samba server handles UNIX permissions serverside. The clients have no idea what permissions a file has, because there's no such concept in the SMB protcol itself (the SMB filesystem itself is rather featureless), but permissions are checked and access is controlled by the Samba daemon.

[jemfinch]

Originally posted by Craig McPherson:
The Samba server handles UNIX permissions serverside. The clients have no idea what permissions a file has, because there's no such concept in the SMB protcol itself (the SMB filesystem itself is rather featureless), but permissions are checked and access is controlled by the Samba daemon.

So if I if /home was shared with samba, how could a person ensure that only the users who actually have permission to browse each user's home directory can do so? Ie, if user "jfincher" on a remote *nix box was browsing the samba shares, how would samba assure that he couldn't see "/home/jemfinch", since he doesn't have permission to access that directory?

Jeremy

[mindwarp.out]

I actually purchased open BSD to help out with the whole SSH name crisis thing if they needed cash, but I think that by default freeBSD is much easier to use. It already comes with the ports collection etc. which make it a breeze to get going

[iDxMan]

Originally posted by jemfinch:
<STRONG>So if I if /home was shared with samba, how could a person ensure that only the users who actually have permission to browse each user's home directory can do so? Ie, if user "jfincher" on a remote *nix box was browsing the samba shares, how would samba assure that he couldn't see "/home/jemfinch", since he doesn't have permission to access that directory?

Jeremy</STRONG>

It depends on how the shares are setup, but.....

Usually /home (by default) is on a `magic` share where the user can only see their stuff. (lol magic share ;) )


[homes]
comment = Home Directories
browseable = no


In other cases I've used the %u variable in the config..

ie:

[fax]
path = /data4/fax_tree1/%u
user only = yes
writable = no
public = no


.... or something to that effect.

-r

[manual_overide]

Heh heh. Use OpenBSD.