BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installer
package like this ???
DK
asdzxc111 at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 28 07:28:20 PDT 2004
--- Remko Lodder <remko at elvandar.org> wrote:
> > --- Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at freebsd.org> 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:
> > eg: FreeBSD PORTS
> > apache+mod_perl-1.3.31
> > apache+mod_ssl+ipv6-1.3.31+2.8.18_4
> >
> > 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!!
>
> Perhaps, in contradiction to Windows (in which you have to press : next
> next next okay and your software is installed) you need to 'rtfm'. This
> being said think the best way to install it, is using apache+mod_ssl...
> as installation base, and then add mod_perl seperatly. Can that be
> done? Yes it can be done, and you would have known if you had asked or
> read some documentation.
thnx for that :)
So is the correct order:
1. apache+mod_ssl
2. mod_perl
- in what order do you add the MySQL & PHP ??
I have been trying to follow "Apache/MySQL/PHP/Mod_Perl Guide":
http://megaz.arbuz.com/?p=apache_howto
.... but after following the long process, MySQL is not running & Mod_Perl wouldn't install
BTW: All I have been doing for 6 days is read docs/man/guides...
> > 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)
>
> It works absolutly fine, i dont think we want one big package for
> everything, then it would be like rpm and FreeBSD imo does not want to
> follow Redhat and such. Oh and that requires a lot of disks for
> installing, Suse anyone? (DVD or six seven CD's?).
6 CD's for what ??? An OS with a FAST GUI/File Manager/FindFiles/Editor + Web Server
... more like 350MB ;) then add 250MB for Office :))
> > ESSENTIAL:
> > Apache
> > MySQL
> > mod_ssl(Contains:OpenSSL)
> > mod_perl
> > PHP
> >
> > OPTIONAL:
> > IMAP
> > mod_python
> > mod_auth_nds
> > mod_auth_mysql
> > mod_fastcgi
> > mod_jk
> > XML
> > GD
> >
>
> All possible with the 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.
>
> Good, at least you try/
>
> >
> > I can install apache OK. Installing other modules(mod_perl, mod_ssl, php etc...) with it is a
> > nightmare...
>
> As said, read the documentation , or learn to search, since if you did
> that and installd apache with modssl included. And you would have
> searched you would have come across mod_perl and even mod_php, which is
> apxs'ed into the apache library stuff and can be used within 'seconds'.
whats apxs'ed short for ??
> > 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!
>
> I think we are in front of windows. We can have multiple users at the
> same time, refresh our system without always having to reboot {update
> some random pacakge in windows and it requires a reboot}. Besides that
> BSD has nice SMP support, and AMD-64 support with working drivers, that
> cannot be said from Windows XP 64bit eh?
Refreshing the system without a reboot is a Priority in front of Automount ?? nice one developers
... & windows 2000 doesn't have a nice SMP ... that's news to my DUAL 1 Ghz Pentium III system at
home I use as a workstation
.. I know its hard for people to swallow, but MS Windows IS easier to use than BSD/Linux/OSX ...
thats WHY its the most widely used.... regardless of marketing/costs etc ...
> > - 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...
>
> Well i dont agree on this one either, my gnome starts much faster then
> windows and especially fvwm2 is very fast and light. And instead of
> ranting on XFCE you can (again) ask how things work, it's not pressing
> the next button here either. I think you are 20, full of hair and you
> just love notepad. And that's fine, since i am 20, full of hair and i
> love vi.. everybody has it's editor... dont rant on that since that's lame..
Actually I am 30, I use EmEditor for coding(nice GUI colors) but I do have all my hair(touch wood)
- 2/3 isn't bad Remko ;)
Gnome starts faster than Windows ?? Start time is not important - I am talking about reaction time
of the GUI - Menu's apearing, moving icons, applications appearing etc - Working with Fedora at
Uni(Yes, I am doing a Masters) the other day, its on a 50 Node Cluster - Its running on systems
faster than what I have at home(above), yet feels like its as gluggy as Windows 95! - nice one
Linux
As for XFCE, how do you start it from the .xinitrc
The XFCE Homepage site says "exec startxfce4" - but that didn't work for me ??
> > - 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)
>
> </rant>
> >
> > - 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 ???
>
> No they did not, you had to enable the driver first before it even got
> recognized. Here you have the possibility to mount a floppy and a disk.
> And again, the handbook has some information about this afaik/
Whats the purpose of having to manually set the system to automount ?? as opposed to having it as
a system install default ?? if there is an advantage, I am sure its for the 0.01% of the user base
> > - 300 Million Users of Windows thinks so ;)) (BTW: I am NOT including KDE/GNOME)
>
> Windows has a larger user base, that's correct.
> >
> > - No default Find Files GUI - I won't even comment on lack of functionality of Cmd line
> > whereis/search/find
>
> In gnome there is a find option that enables you to find files. And then
> there is find, which can do a lot more then you probably think now.
- sorry, I wasn't clear above - For the lack of a GUI Find Files option, I meant the default
install or with Window Managers(wmaker), not the Desktop Environments like KDE/Gnome(which are
also fast... NOT) - which I don't use as they are slow
> > I can tell you that 95% of people who use computers want "EASE of USE"
> > - This INCLUDES easy installation of the Operating System
>
> Following the handbook makes FreeBSD installable by nearly anyone.
- installable YES, configurable ... you've got to be shitting me :o
- install BSD+wmaker(easy)
- start the GUI - oops some doc reading here(easy+1)
- while in wmaker, dynamically change the Montior settings from 1600x1200 32b to 1028x768 24b
(wouldn't have a clue - off to the docs - manually edit configuration files ?? - then restart -
but what is the correct horizontal frequency OR vertical refresh(hard++) - I don't know & I don't
want to know(hey while I am at it, why don't I start designing my own CPU)... that's why people
use Windows(easy to configure)
I played with BSD back in 1997 & thought it needed some work.. so I gave it a miss..
Fast Forward to 2004, & all I see are developers adding features that are not that important, yet
missing the basics of what the majority of USER's want(not coders)
Apple OSX understands this(nice GUI over BSD base - shame about the stupid high prices & dumb one
button mouse)... sorry BSD/Linux developers ...your just giving more air to MS by focusing on the
wrong things
...XPde seem to have the right idea... looks promising... hope the GUI reaction time is fast
http://www.xpde.com/
that reminds me of my Java Lecturer(I hate Java BTW) in which every time students had a problem,
he would never look at the code but just reply "check out the java docs.. its all in there" ...
yea right..
> > - 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 !!
>
> You should not shout that much, that's bad for your heart. FreeBSD has
> features that enable you to pick what you want as X-client (window
> manager), follow the handbook..
... heart... I had it replaced with the plastic one installed yesterday... it was conflicting with
BSD !!
> > 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 ... :(((
>
> Opinions, again i dont agree, and if you do find this i suggest you have
> some benchmarks with what applications run faster, etc. Since then you
> made a good point with some proof.
Benchmarks - How about FreeBSD+wmaker(GUI) & Windows 2000 installed on EXACTLY the same box
Any person standing next to me could see which is faster
Windows 2000 GUI - Much faster than Wmaker
Loading/Using Notepad/Wordpad - Much faster than Nedit
Windows Explorer - Heaps faster than xfe
maybe you would like a test of the Apache Web Server on BSD against the Apache Web Server on
Windows 2000 ?? - I will search the net & get back to you on that if you are interested ??
I wonder if people that run web servers on BSD never use a GUI thereby saying how fast BSD is...
- yes, keep using VI & don't forget to feed the Horse :)
> > ...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
>
> You perhaps should have asked, search, or rtfm before giving yourself a
> heart beat of 160...
All I have been doing till 4am every morning is reading/searching :((
> If you still think that it can be done better, you are free to alter
> things so that it can do what you wish, since you tell us that you are
> an experienced coder that should not be that hard..
..able to code yes, that much free time, I wish !!
> Besides that: just ask us if something is weird for you, perhaps that's
> the same for others and we should improve our documentation, instead of
> ranting you can actually help us and others, in despite to windows in
> which that is very hard to do so.
There is nothing wrong with the docs regarding installing/using BSD - docs are fine :)
If a user wants to install 5 related applications, like Apache/MySQL/PHP/Mod.SSL.Perl - these have
certain order installation requirements(if from source) - seeing as BSD is used so much as a Web
Server, some docs on installing these combinations might help ...BUT even better, the ability to
install each as 5 seperate Packages would make a HUGE difference in time/configuration if this
could be done without the packages causing conflicts with each other!
Although a Tutorial in the Docs for Apache & its important components would help, its the lack of
providing the basics that every OS should have & I don't mean Redhat/Linux(I don't like Linux BTW)
I choose to try BSD because of its "stated" rock solid performance as a Web Server compared to
Windows 2000(regardless of costs)
... but if BSD's performance is related to being able to turn off services & close ports, I can do
that in windows - with an nice GUI(albeit not with the same level of manual tuning / tradeoff for
all the other nice things that windows offers)
If BSD's better performance is due to System Admins running Web Servers but doing so without the
GUI(???)... then you maybe right Remko, BSD may not be right for me.
- In the year 2004, I refuse to spend my time coding in front of a screen hacking in "cmd line
syntax".. hey thats just me!
.... woohh, that was a long blah... I think BSD is getting to me ;)
Kind Regards,
DK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list