new user questions. (Before I back myself into a corner!)
freebsd at edvax.de
Fri Nov 26 12:53:14 UTC 2010
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:30:29 -0000, "Dave" <dave at g8kbv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The original instructions I used when creating the GPS/NTP server,
> resulted in the BASH shell being used. I think that's part of the odd
> problem, as that does not show up in the list of known shell's, when
> creating a new user.
The Bourne Again Shell is NOT, I repeat: *NOT* part of the
FreeBSD default installation. It is an ADDITIONAL piece of
A common "Linuxism" seems to imply that bash is present on
every system. While I agree that bash is a good interactive
shell (except some "misbehaviour", in my opinion), it is
often used as scripting shell where NO functionality that
is specific to bash is used - instead of sh, the Bourne Shell,
FreeBSD's standard scripting shell (as well as the standard
scripting shell on nearly every UNIX out there).
You have to manually add bash (by ports or packages), then
it will be listed in /etc/shells and therefore be available
to the adduser script (or pw program) for new users. You can
alter the user's shell afterwards using the chsh command.
> Not quite it seems, that parameter only works if the -D is used too I
> believe, and with inetd running things.
Yes, -D makes ftpd become a daemon. Its invication via inetd
is very convenient, allthoug the "need for inetd" is originated
in a different time in past.
> At present, the system wont
> allow that for some odd reason. No errors, it just ignores it.
How that? Which settings do you currently have? Oh, and check
the firewall (e. g. IPFW) to allow FTP on the alternative port.
> > Remember: This is FreeBSD, we have excellent manpages and
> > other good documentation. :-)
> Agreed, the documentation is excelent, compared to that available for
> many Linux's (with the exception of Debian I've found)
I share this observation. :-)
> The biggest
> difference is the people. Here in the FreeBSD world, I ask a question, I
> get sensible answers, for which I'm eternaly gratefull. In many LUG's
> and other Linux Forums, I often get self opinionated Flames!
You can get them here, too, if you ask the "right" questions. :-)
No, honestly: This list has helped me very much, and I could learn
many things. So I want to contribute back. When I see a chance
to help with knowledge, experience or pointers, I'll do that.
And so do most on this list.
> Though the doc's are good, I do find it less than easy to assimilate it
> all in a meaningfull way, not coming from a unix background. But that's
> just my problem, and I'm sure the penny will drop sometime soon.
The backgrpund of the documentation is that is is a reference,
not a HOWTO, or a Wiki style conglomerate. It is maintained in
the same quality way as the system is. Many (but sadly not all)
ports follow this concept (e. g. "man xmms", "man mplayer" or
even "man opera"; in contradiction "man firefox" or any KDE
You need to have experience in HOW to read man pages, to filter
out what you need. The system does NOT know what you need, so
it doesn't "hide unneeded information".
> So I know (not being too familier with all this) in simple terms, what
> advantages/disadvantages are there, in respects to the different shell's
> avalable? Is there a comparison feature table somewhere?
You'll find more than just the UNIX shells in there. The ports
collection has a category "shells" where you can refer to the
The most common shells in use are, of course, the system
shells: sh as default scripting shell, csh as default dialog
shell. Common "3rd party" shells are bash (obviously), zsh
> As an asside, having got the FTP server working, I then "had an idea"
> and ended up breaking it. Cest la vie... I'll look to using a stand
> alone program/utility I think, that involves less system settings
That's what inetd is originally intended for: Configure and
delegate requests to specific programs.
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions