lloyd545220-trucker at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 7 10:58:33 PST 2004
Thanks for the reply. I liked what you said, and it pretty much sums up
what I've seen all across the UNIX world. BSD and Linux seem to be
geared towards permanent locations and for regular repeated types of
projects. Mobility seems to a available, but on a very limited scale.
However, there are people out there doing just this. I would really like
read about their experiences with problems and solutions.
As for using a Mac. I have always considered the Mac a superior machine,
but their sales structure turns me off. They end up being too expensive.
On my recommendation, my brother bought a Mac desktop. He like it so
well that he bought a Mac laptop too. He's works as a Nuclear Analyst
and a couple of years ago, he changed companies to work as head of
department for a new company starting up. The people in the IT
department are always dropping into his office to check his laptop. They
check everyone's laptops which are used within the company. They are
always wishing that the M$ operating laptops worked as well as his MAC.
I've considered putting Darwin on my computers, but from what I have
read, there are not enough PC type drivers for it. What originally drew
me to FreeBSD was that the Mac OS-X was based on FreeBSD.
But I have gotten side-tracked off of the subject.
If I read your answer right, I can put any name in here like
"traveler2.hayes.org", and as long as it's connecting to the Internet
and it's not a server connected from the Internet, it should be OK. Right?
Email: lloyd545220-trucker at yahoo.com
E-FAX Number: (208) 248-6590
Matthew Seaman wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 11:49:13PM -0700, Lloyd Hayes wrote:
>[ Hostname changes when going on-line from different locations ]
>>>don't worry about it.
>>With XFree86, it is an issue.
>>It appears that Xorg won't configure correctly without it. Although I
>>won't swear that's the problem with Xorg.
>One problem you will run into, with either flavour of X Windows, is to
>do with the authentication mechanism. X is designed to be network
>transparent -- so I can run an X program somewhere else on the net and
>have it put its windows etc. on my local desktop. See xauth(1) for a
>program you can use to manage access in that way. The problem is that
>the records xauth(1) keeps in ~/.Xauthority are based on the machine's
>hostname -- and that includes connecting to the local desktop too, as
>a degenerate case of 'across the network'. So if your hostname
>changes, suddenly you may well have to quit your current X session,
>log out and log in again to reestablish those credentials.
>There are other programs, like sendmail(8), ipfw(8), natd(8), which
>will tend to have an adverse reaction to the hostname and IP number
>changing out from beneath them unless very carefully configured.
>Now, usually this doesn't pose too much of a problem as typically
>dhclient(8) isn't configured to modify the hostname. The trouble
>happens when the authentication system tries to *verify* the host
>name. It does that by looking up the name in the DNS, which returns
>one or more IP numbers. Then it looks up those IP numbers, and counts
>the name as verified if any of them return the original hostname.
>[Well, there's a bit more to it than that involving various other DNS
>record types, but that's the basic idea]
>You can see that there are going to be problems with this if you're
>moving between different connectivity providers:
> * Either you choose your own hostname and stick with it -- except
> that the IP number you get from the ISP won't resolve back to
> that hostname. In this case you could use a 'dynamic dns' type
> service, as provided by eg. http://www.dyndns.org/ -- not
> recommending that serive in particular, just using it as an
> example. However this is normally used by home users and
> precise timings of updates etc. may make it unsuitable for you.
> You'll have to experiment.
> Note that the hostname doesn't actually *have* to correspond to
> any of the IP numbers configured on any of the interfaces, but
> that most software will assume that it does unless configured
> otherwise. And it can be quite tricky to configure some
> packages to cope with that sort of setup.
> * You accept the hostname that goes with the IP number dished out
> by the ISP temporarily. That means logging out and back in
> again when you go on-line.
>>I've been using my backup computer as a test bed for the various
>>operating systems. M$ has never been real reliable. But my virus
>>software seems to be blocking viruses almost daily which are aimed at
>>one Microsoft product or another. It has become apparent to me that any
>>computer that I have which is connected to the Internet needs to be
>>using non-M$ products. I had hoped to make a painless transfer to one of
>>the Linux or BSD products, much as I did about 11 years ago when I
>>jumped from CBM and Apple computers to PCs. (13 years of using CBM
>>computers and only a couple of years of using Apples.)
>Have you considered using a MacOS X machine? It has all of the
>reliability and power of a Unix box, together with a user interface
>which has had tens of thousands of man-hours put into polishing away
>all of those sort of usability problems. It's very different indeed
>from the old MacOS.
>In theory you can configure a FreeBSD portable to be almost as
>flexible configuration-wise as a MacOS box is. But it isn't as easy,
>and it certainly isn't for complete beginners. As you say, in so many
>words: FreeBSD demands that you learn. Once you've got over the
>initial hump most people find it quite rewarding and a very pleasant
>OS to use.
>>So far, it has been anything but painless. The priorities of a UNIX
>>system is far different then what I've experienced. And I have yet to
>>get a UNIX type system developed enough to access the Internet. One
>>challenge or another keeps cropping up.
>>So, it seems that I'm hitting text books again, and asking questions
>>during my spare time....
>>The question that I keep asking myself is if I can get to a point with
>>FreeBSD, or any UNIX type system, where I am comfortable with it and I
>>can make it adapt to my changing environment. At this point, I feel that
>>if I can learn enough about it, FreeBSD is my best answer. My reasoning
>>is that while newer programs are always put into usage on any OS, you
>>can usually still manually configure everything with FreeBSD.
>Yes. When people say that FreeBSD is a 'server OS', one of the things
>that they imply is that it will be configured with a permanent network
>connection, unchanging hostname and all the rest. That's FreeBSD's
>natural environment and where it is easiest to deal with.
>What you want to do is -- I wouldn't say unnatural -- but certainly
>less usual. Consequently there's less experience of people building
>that sort of configuration, less documentation, more bugs, more things
>that are perhaps a bit awkwardly conceived. While books will cover
>much of what you need, chances are they're missing odd crucial little
>nuggets here and there. Usually such hints can be found on the web --
>in blog pages or bits of HTML that people have put up documenting how
>they did something. Read it with a judicial eye, as often it will
>make odd unwarranted assumptions about exactly what software you're
>using or exactly what you're trying to do. It's the raw
>documentation, if you like, that the more polished works like the
>Handbook are distilled out of.
>>Since many of the processes running on FreeBSD require a 'named'
>>computer, I need to know how to handle this. Otherwise, as it says in
>>"The Complete FreeBSD" book, there will be processes which will not run,
>>or else they will not run correctly on my computer. The answer to this
>>problem does not seemed to be addressed while using 'dhclient' in any of
>>the printed information that I could find.
>Actually, there isn't "an" answer to this problem. There's a whole
>series of answers dealing with separate bits of software that may or
>may not be running on your system. That means you can use a divide
>and conquer strategy, but as we so often say around here "show us the
>details". Apart from anything else, that should let us identify
>exactly which piece of software is causing that specific problematic
More information about the freebsd-questions