From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 26 12:53:14 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E80D1065679 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:53:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E9B8FC15 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-8-222.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.8.222]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35700E; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:53:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id oAQCrBLF001547; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:53:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:53:11 +0100 From: Polytropon To: "Dave" Message-Id: <20101126135311.32af529e.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <4CEF9A55.29535.48F8EF07@dave.g8kbv.demon.co.uk> References: <4CED8855.23373.40E2965D@dave.g8kbv.demon.co.uk> <4CEEC055.15679.45A559A8@dave.g8kbv.demon.co.uk> <20101125212508.82f1a646.freebsd@edvax.de> <4CEF9A55.29535.48F8EF07@dave.g8kbv.demon.co.uk> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new user questions. (Before I back myself into a corner!) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:53:14 -0000 On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:30:29 -0000, "Dave" 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 software. 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 program). 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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_command_shells You'll find more than just the UNIX shells in there. The ports collection has a category "shells" where you can refer to the description files. 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 and ksh. > 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 > manipulation. That's what inetd is originally intended for: Configure and delegate requests to specific programs. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...