BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer package like this ???

DK asdzxc111 at
Wed Jul 28 04:27:16 PDT 2004

--- Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at> wrote:
> All of these are available on FreeBSD too (except Mercury Mailserver,
> which is just another Win32 MTA that I don't know about but somehow feel
> reluctant to trust more than my Sendmail or Postfix installations).

Yes, but not as ONE nice Package:

I tried to install apache+mod_ssl+ipv6-1.3.31+2.8.18_4 THEN apache+mod_perl-1.3.31
and its messed up!!

If you want people(Windows user) using BSD on mass for servers etc, develop a Package that
contains many of the necessary Apache modules:
eg: ONE Package(NOT an array of messy Ports)



> > --------------------------------
> Why isn't it easy for you to install all these things on FreeBSD?
> Which part of the installation troubles you?  A recent addition to the
> Handbook was a section on Apache.  Perhaps, by letting us know what
> gives you trouble we can improve the documentation to help you and
> anyone else that tries to install an Apache web server from now on.

Being a long time Windows 2000 user & a coder in C, C++, Assembler, Perl, PHP I am making a real
effort to set up a Web Server on the FreeBSD platform.

I can install apache OK. Installing other modules(mod_perl, mod_ssl, php etc...) with it is a

What I have noticed so far about FreeBSD:

FreeBSD is about 5 YEARS behind windows(I would actually say 1990, but people my have heart
attacks) - apologies to all the hard work put in by BSD contributors!

- with FreeBSD & Windows 2000 installed on the SAME computer, the GUI of Windows 2000 is MUCH
faster than any of the BSD window managers(wmaker, FVWM, blackbox, fluxbox, XFCE(STILL can't start
this from exec, whats the damn command startxfce4 ??? this doesn't work!)... I won't even comment
on the shitty performance of KDE & GNOME - If people say it should be used without a GUI... they
must be over 40, bald, lonely & most love shitty VI - I can EDIT any file faster on a GUI editor
then any coder I have seen at UNI/WORK who say VI is better...

- No default GUI File Explorer(excluding KDE/GNOME, not that there's is usable) - had to install
xfe on wmaker(still about as useless as Windows 3.1 File Manager)

- FreeBSD does NOT Default Mount my CD & Floppy(this is ridiculous - even MS DOS NOT to mention
Windows 3.1[Year 1990... ring a bell] did this!!) - you honestly expect new users to edit
configuration files so it automounts ?? ... instead of having stuff in the man/manual/docs about
mounting/unmounting, just automount them as DEFAULT... no need to read the docs... logical ???
- 300 Million Users of Windows thinks so ;)) (BTW: I am NOT including KDE/GNOME)

- No default Find Files GUI - I won't even comment on lack of functionality of Cmd line

I can tell you that 95% of people who use computers want "EASE of USE"
- This INCLUDES easy installation of the Operating System
- This should INCLUDE a default setup that HAS: a Default FAST GUI/File Manager/Find Files/Editor
.. this is all that is needed to get a user up & going to installing & configuring the OS to thier
tastes ... did I forget to mention as default AUTOMOUNT !!

I cannot tell you the shock & disappointment I had in finding out that Windows 2000 runs FASTER
than FreeBSD with any GUI/Windows Manager/Desktop Environment ... :(((

...damn I have gone way off track here... sorry for the ranting people... but after 6 days
straight of messing around trying to install Apache/MySQL/Mod_Perl/Mod_SSL/PHP.. I am a little
tired... 3 days of that was trying to get a basic GUI/File Manager/Find Files/Editor working

Kind Regards,


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list