FreeBSD Basic's

24jedi · 12-07-2004, 10:18 AM

I came across this site which appears to have some good tutorials for use newbies.

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/ct/15

sigsegv · 12-07-2004, 10:32 AM

Good call!

Maybe chort will sticky this (or something) as you're correct. The OnLamp site has a ton of good info on it on all kinds of topics. I have the RSS feed for the Big Scary Daemons column in my firefox live bookmarks and really all the BSD section is great!

chort · 12-07-2004, 12:49 PM

Looks like there could be some useful information in there. I'm a little bit dubious about Dru Lavigne after I leafed through her book, but I'll let everyone make up their own mind.

nixcraft · 12-23-2004, 09:58 AM

Yup it is nice one!

SlackerLX · 12-23-2004, 10:07 AM

http://www.freebsddiary.org/

XavierP · 12-23-2004, 11:45 AM

We already have a Links section here - why not submit them there?

SlackerLX · 12-23-2004, 11:52 AM

Yes, Master

igracgq · 01-04-2005, 04:47 PM

"The third method is to download and extract a source tarball. This method works on any Unix system but comes with a big disadvantage: the package management system in place usually cannot track the installed files. This means you have to remember what you installed, when you installed it, and what dependencies come with or rely on that program. It will also be very difficult to keep those programs up to date and to remember to check for security fixes on each program."

Quoted from the reading I did on the link mentioned above:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/ct/15
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2004...SD_Basics.html

1) As a newbie to linux I just want someone to confirm if the above statement is true where you can install a tarball onto any Unix type OS (ie. Solaris, BSD, MacOS, Linux)?

2) Moreover, in what programming language are tarballs written in?

3) I guess its better to install an RPM since it won't come with the disandvantage that tarballs come with as mentioned in my quote above. However, RPM's are distro dependant where one RPM that's make for Red Hat won't be able to install on Mandrake?

Thanks

Peacedog · 01-13-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

"The third method is to download and extract a source tarball. This method works on any Unix system but comes with a big disadvantage: the package management system in place usually cannot track the installed files. This means you have to remember what you installed, when you installed it, and what dependencies come with or rely on that program. It will also be very difficult to keep those programs up to date and to remember to check for security fixes on each program."

Quoted from the reading I did on the link mentioned above:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/ct/15
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/200...BSD_Basics.html

1) As a newbie to linux I just want someone to confirm if the above statement is true where you can install a tarball onto any Unix type OS (ie. Solaris, BSD, MacOS, Linux)?

2) Moreover, in what programming language are tarballs written in?

3) I guess its better to install an RPM since it won't come with the disandvantage that tarballs come with as mentioned in my quote above. However, RPM's are distro dependant where one RPM that's make for Red Hat won't be able to install on Mandrake?

Thanks

This has been sitting for a while so I'll try and answer your questions.

1) You won't need to actually install a tarball.
The tarball should be extracted and should contain the source so that you may compile it and install the
source.

For questions 2, and 3, you may want to look at a guide to compiling from source. This one is based on linux, there are probably many others available.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...threadid=45094

You'll need the development packages for your particular system or os. Hope this clears things up for you at least a little.
good luck.

igracgq · 01-13-2005, 08:04 PM

thanks Peacedog

However, in regards to my question $1 can you compilre a tarball onto any Unix type OS (ie. Solaris, BSD, MacOS, Linux)?

thanks

frob23 · 01-13-2005, 08:43 PM

Almost always, yes. But some of them are really written in a non-portable manner which will make it nearly impossible. It depends on how well it was written. Some will compile without any issues at all... others might take some tweaking... and some would require you to code whole modules and make sweeping changes to the source.

EliotK · 03-03-2005, 08:49 AM

I been thinking about getting bsd for a while, but what can it do for me? It's the hardware and shit im worried about, plus i got debian and fc3 installed.

frob23 · 03-03-2005, 10:53 AM

Almost all hardware I have ever run into has been supported without major issues by FreeBSD. If you do have something which is vital for your use and it isn't on the hardware compatability list... well, it is worth a shot but make it the first thing you test and be willing to walk away if it doesn't work (FreeBSD just wouldn't be right for you).

As for shit, shit is currently unsupported... you can run -CURRENT and get an implementation which is just sloppy shit and is soft and fragile compared to the rest of the system. Personally, I prefer no-shit but I know some people have different ideas about computing.

FreeBSD lives pretty happily with other operating systems... so it is not a big deal to have a couple linux versions laying around. Personally, I don't dual boot any of my systems... but that is just me again.

EliotK · 03-03-2005, 10:57 AM

lmao yes like windows is shit, anyway so freebsd's bootloader will detect other os's such as debian?

frob23 · 03-03-2005, 11:04 AM

There are minor issues with using the FreeBSD bootloader with Linux. It has no way to locate the Linux kernel and thus requires a copy of grub or LILO at the start of the linux partitions. It is usually best to leave the boot loader (grub or LILO) alone during the BSD install and then instruct those bootloaders to find FreeBSD.