General Linux Chat and Small Questions v. I broke my Arch Install

[lavacano]

[QUOTE=rilez;44296243]Gentoo
[t]http://i.imgur.com/3WOvdwH.png[/t][/QUOTE]

The wiki's goofy and verbose as shit, you can ignore most of that.

emerge gnome-light
rc-update add dbus default # Chances are dbus is already a default service anyway but whatever

You can [b]especially[/b] ignore the bit about profiles, I've never once changed my profile from the default.

[shodan]

[QUOTE=rilez;44296243]
Not to mention, Arch has the advantage of prebuilt packages:
[/QUOTE]
I've been using homebrew a lot lately because of my new macbook and it just compiles most of the software you install on the spot just like Gentoo. It's actually surprisingly fast.

[rilez]

Let's all just use Bedrock Linux, then we can use whatever we want when we want it

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

Heck I might actually do that, could solve the issues with Ubuntu packages...

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=lavacano;44295631]I dunno, the AUR requires going to the website and grabbing the PKGBUILD (or installing something like yaourt). On Gentoo you just put a line in a plain text file and run an update on your package, since most of the "packages" (live ebuilds) are in the main Portage tree (a few are sectioned off into overlays for reasons that are beyond me).

It's been a while since I used a live ebuild though, I don't remember if they automatically update with world or not.[/QUOTE]

They don't automatically update with world. I do believe there's something like a @live list that you build to update all live software.

[QUOTE=rilez;44296243]Argon and Pamac are both excellent AUR helpers. Pamac functions basically the same way as Synaptic, and both of them can update AUR packages

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

Not to mention, Arch has the advantage of prebuilt packages:

Gentoo
[t]http://i.imgur.com/3WOvdwH.png[/t]

Arch
[t]http://i.imgur.com/xJNDh2e.png[/t]

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

This is what Pamac looks like:

[t]http://i.imgur.com/MP5kiJl.png[/t]

Pretty easy for anyone who has used Synaptic before[/QUOTE]

Gentoo supports prebuilt packages as well, and there are quite a few frontends for Portage too, if you're curious.

[shodan]

[QUOTE=rilez;44297102]Let's all just use Bedrock Linux, then we can use whatever we want when we want it

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

Heck I might actually do that, could solve the issues with Ubuntu packages...[/QUOTE]

Linux from scratch with a custom package manager that accepts rpm,aur and deb

[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]

Osx is unix so yea...
My formulla made it into homebrew :3 I added screenfetch

[t]http://i.imgur.com/W8oR3wI.png[/t]

[Havoc Ryder]

I'm pretty much a rookie to this whole Linux stuff, I've used Ubuntu Server before to host a minecraft server and web server. I installed CentOS into a VM to try it out, I installed apache and MySQL etc but I don't have access to the var/www folder. It won't let me write anything to it, what's the best way to manage html files?

I also really hate how when navigating folders each directory will open in a new window so you end up with about 8 windows open really quickly.

[nikomo]

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299346]but I don't have access to the var/www folder. It won't let me write anything to it,[/QUOTE]

The folder is owned by a different user, the user that the web server is running under, probably www-data. Use su to become the root user, you can then access /var/www, and put files there, and modify them.

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299346]
what's the best way to manage html files?
[/QUOTE]

The terminal?
Write and test files on your local machine and then transfer them over with something like WinSCP.
Or you can use nano to change them inside the VM, I use nano a lot in some cases.

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299346]
I also really hate how when navigating folders each directory will open in a new window so you end up with about 8 windows open really quickly.[/QUOTE]

The graphical user interface is training wheels, it's not supposed to be actually used on a server.
Try and get used to the terminal, you'll be using it.

The only things you'll really need to get started on the terminal are ls (directory listing), cd (change directory), less (show contents of file), su (become root, or another user), chmod and chown (modify file permissions, and change owner, might want to chown www-data:www-data filename if you create a new file in /var/www)
And man (stands for manual), do man ls to see the documentation for ls, up and down arrow keys to navigate, q to quit out of it.

[Havoc Ryder]

[QUOTE=nikomo;44299425]The folder is owned by a different user, the user that the web server is running under, probably www-data. Use su to become the root user, you can then access /var/www, and put files there, and modify them.

The terminal?
Write and test files on your local machine and then transfer them over with something like WinSCP.
Or you can use nano to change them inside the VM, I use nano a lot in some cases.

The graphical user interface is training wheels, it's not supposed to be actually used on a server.
Try and get used to the terminal, you'll be using it.

The only things you'll really need to get started on the terminal are ls (directory listing), cd (change directory), less (show contents of file), su (become root, or another user), chmod and chown (modify file permissions, and change owner, might want to chown www-data:www-data filename if you create a new file in /var/www)
And man (stands for manual), do man ls to see the documentation for ls, up and down arrow keys to navigate, q to quit out of it.[/QUOTE]

As I said I used to use Ubuntu Server which is all CLI by default, so I'm familiar with commands like ls and cd. I thought that by using a GUI it would help me out and make things a bit quicker, I'm learning HTML, PHP and MySQL at the moment and need a sort of test web server. I knew about su and sudo but wasn't sure how to get the same effect while inside of the GUI file browser, clicking and dragging is quicker than typing in a command. If using just the terminal is important, do you think I should stick with Ubuntu Server?

Also which credentials should I use when using an FTP client such as filezilla? Root also?

[rilez]

GNOME's limitations were really starting to piss me off (seriously spent an entire afternoon trying to get globalmenu working) so I decided to try KDE again, and this time I REALLY tried. I'm always off put by how god damn ugly it is out of the box. So I've really been sitting down with it and there's a lot of things I like about it

Pros:

1. appmenu [B]works.[/B] I can also force it into a button. I couldn't do this on GNOME, MATE or Xfce. It requires a bit of tomfoolery to get it working with GTK apps though
2. Their compositor and window manager are awesome. They look awful by default, but you can hide the awful and keep most of the nice effects.
3. I can actually move panel widgets around
4. I found out about Homerun which can totally replace activities ([url]http://userbase.kde.org/Homerun[/url])

Cons:

1. Horrible themeing system. I will have to make four themes. Two GTK themes, a QT theme and a panel theme. Whereas on GNOME I needed two. This will be a lot more work for me, but the user won't notice. Unless they try to switch themes and have to navigate that mess

2. QT applications are ugly. I am convinced the KDE designers have never heard of padding. Some of this stuff can be fixed, some can't. Just kinda hoping they improve on this...

3. kde is ginormous and has lots of useless applications. I think I installed 100 QT games when I pulled the kde group. There were so many dependencies that I couldn't view the whole list to get rid of some of them.

4. I hate the K's. Konqueror. Kate. Konsole. KMail. Lokalize. Klipper. They all do this shit except for Dolphin. Which I will confuse with Dolphin emulator. I'm probably gonna replace this all with GTK so I guess it doesn't matter?

KDE is such a mess of garbage on top of a really nice framework. I almost feel obligated to fix it for them

[nikomo]

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299525]I thought that by using a GUI it would help me out and make things a bit quicker[/QUOTE]

It's slowing you down since you can't use tab-completion in a GUI file manager, and dealing with privilege escalation is annoying as fuck (you have to basically launch the file manager with sudo or gksudo from the terminal).

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299525]clicking and dragging is quicker than typing in a command.[/QUOTE]

It's not.

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299525]If using just the terminal is important, do you think I should stick with Ubuntu Server?
[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter what you use, if you want a more real experience, shut down the VM, switch the network interface into bridged mode, start it up again, install an SSH server, and use PuTTY in Windows to connect to the VM.

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299525]Also which credentials should I use when using an FTP client such as filezilla? Root also?[/QUOTE]

1) Don't use FTP, install openssh-server and use WinSCP.
2) I would say use root. You wouldn't do that in a real development environment, but you're not in a company working on their website, so it's not like user permissions etc. matter right now.

[Havoc Ryder]

[QUOTE=nikomo;44299641]It's slowing you down since you can't use tab-completion in a GUI file manager, and dealing with privilege escalation is annoying as fuck (you have to basically launch the file manager with sudo or gksudo from the terminal).

It's not.

It doesn't matter what you use, if you want a more real experience, shut down the VM, switch the network interface into bridged mode, start it up again, install an SSH server, and use PuTTY in Windows to connect to the VM.

1) Don't use FTP, install openssh-server and use WinSCP.
2) I would say use root. You wouldn't do that in a real development environment, but you're not in a company working on their website, so it's not like user permissions etc. matter right now.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I feel like there's so much to learn but If I was to run any kind of server I want it to be Linux, just seems like the better option. With Ubuntu on a VM I've always SSH'd into it from windows, main reason being I can paste stuff into it and into nano, but I use NAT for the network type.

I'll have to wrap my head around the permission and ownership commands as it's those kind of issues that are giving me the most bother with Linux, I'm used to Windows simply asking me to put in an administrator password then letting me continue.

[Anderen2]

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299721]Thanks, I feel like there's so much to learn but If I was to run any kind of server I want it to be Linux, just seems like the better option. With Ubuntu on a VM I've always SSH'd into it from windows, main reason being I can paste stuff into it and into nano, but I use NAT for the network type.

I'll have to wrap my head around the permission and ownership commands as it's those kind of issues that are giving me the most bother with Linux, I'm used to Windows simply asking me to put in an administrator password then letting me continue.[/QUOTE]

You have that in Linux aswell with sudo. Ex. "sudo mv file /var/www/file" would move the file to /var/www/ with Administrative rights (as root).

Edit:

Permission and ownership is not that more difficult in Linux vs. Windows though. You have users (As in Windows), and each user could be a member of multiple groups.
One mayor difference is that in Linux everything is a file, and files is owned by both a user and a group. This means that in order to do for example low-level disk management, you need to be able to access the disk file which is owned by root and the group disk. In order to access that file you then either need to be root, use tempoary root (sudo), or be a member of the disk group.

Some useful commands:
[I]useradd [/I]- Adds an user (Or use "adduser" if it is available, its simpler to use)
[I]usermod[/I] - Change user attributes/info
[I]usermod -a -G group user[/I] - Adds user to group
[I]groupadd[/I] - Adds an group
[I]groupmod[/I] - Changes a group

[I]chmod[/I] - Changes files permissions:
[I]chmod 777 file[/I] (Makes file readable, writable, and executable by everyone)
[I]chmod +x file[/I] (Makes file eXecutable)

More info and examples on permissions here: [URL="http://www.tldp.org/LDP/GNU-Linux-Tools-Summary/html/x9543.htm"]http://www.tldp.org/LDP/GNU-Linux-Tools-Summary/html/x9543.htm[/URL]

[I]chown[/I] - Changes files owner:
ex. [I]chown user:group file[/I]

[Havoc Ryder]

[QUOTE=Anderen2;44299743]You have that in Linux aswell with sudo. Ex. "sudo mv file /var/www/file" would move the file to /var/www/ with Administrative rights (as root).[/QUOTE]

Yeah but in a GUI it basically tells you to fuck off, If I need to do the majority of the work in the terminal I'll stick with Ubuntu server, keep it 100% authentic and less shit running in the background with no GUI, it's what I started out on anyway.

[Anderen2]

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299779]Yeah but in a GUI it basically tells you to fuck off, If I need to do the majority of the work in the terminal I'll stick with Ubuntu server, keep it 100% authentic and less shit running in the background with no GUI, it's what I started out on anyway.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about GUI in Linux? If so then you have gksu/kdesudo, if on gnome "gksu nautilus" or on KDE "kdesudo dolphin" would open the filemanager as root, and therefor with root permissions.

But, if you are using Linux on an server, then the best way is without GUI, as the GUI is kind of limiting when you are doing server tasks.

[lavacano]

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44299346]I'm pretty much a rookie to this whole Linux stuff, I've used Ubuntu Server before to host a minecraft server and web server. I installed CentOS into a VM to try it out, I installed apache and MySQL etc but I don't have access to the var/www folder. It won't let me write anything to it, what's the best way to manage html files?[/QUOTE]

Create an "httpauthors" group and add yourself to it.

$ su -
# groupadd httpauthors
# gpasswd -a your_username httpauthors
# chgrp -R httpauthors /var/www
# chmod -R 775 /var/www
# exit

and if you still get permission errors after this (existing shells will likely have this problem)

$ newgrp httpauthors

[QUOTE=rilez;44299604]3. kde is ginormous and has lots of useless applications. I think I installed 100 QT games when I pulled the kde group. There were so many dependencies that I couldn't view the whole list to get rid of some of them.[/QUOTE]

You couldn't just install kdebase somehow? That's the package that contains the "essentials".

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=lavacano;44300270]Create an "httpauthors" group and add yourself to it.

$ su -
# groupadd httpauthors
# gpasswd -a your_username httpauthors
# chgrp -R httpauthors /var/www
# chmod -R 775 /var/www
# exit

and if you still get permission errors after this (existing shells will likely have this problem)

$ newgrp httpauthors

You couldn't just install kdebase somehow? That's the package that contains the "essentials".[/QUOTE]

Modifying the current users groups, may require a termination of session. Essentially just log out and log back in, before these changes take effect.

[Havoc Ryder]

[QUOTE=lavacano;44300270]Create an "httpauthors" group and add yourself to it.

$ su -
# groupadd httpauthors
# gpasswd -a your_username httpauthors
# chgrp -R httpauthors /var/www
# chmod -R 775 /var/www
# exit

and if you still get permission errors after this (existing shells will likely have this problem)

$ newgrp httpauthors

You couldn't just install kdebase somehow? That's the package that contains the "essentials".[/QUOTE]

Perfect, this is what I was looking for, simply a way to permanently give me permission to that directory.

[lavacano]

[QUOTE=Adamhully;44300475]Perfect, this is what I was looking for, simply a way to permanently give me permission to that directory.[/QUOTE]

I especially like that method because you have more convenient control over who gets to write to that directory if you have multiple users - just add or remove users to that group where appropriate.

[shodan]

What structure do you guys use for your webservers? I'm thinking of changing it a bit.

Mine is this at the moment.

/srv
`-- www
    `-- DOMAIN
       |-- logs
       |   |-- access.log
       |   `-- error.log
       `-- public_html
           |--  CONTENT
           {...}

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;44307772]What structure do you guys use for your webservers? I'm thinking of changing it a bit.

Mine is this at the moment.

/srv
`-- www
    `-- DOMAIN
       |-- logs
       |   |-- access.log
       |   `-- error.log
       `-- public_html
           |--  CONTENT
           {...}

[/QUOTE]

/var
`-- www
    |-- cgi-bin
    |   | { .. }
    |-- cooker # build bot, symbolic link to /var/www/cgi-bin/cooker
    |-- img
    |-- css
    | index.cgi
    | { ... } # other static files

[Darkwater]

/var/www
├── api/
├── css/
├── fonts/
├── img/
├── inc/
├── js/
├── footer.inc
├── header.inc
├── index.php
├── register.php
├── showforum.php
└── etc..

It's kind of a mess tho, I'm going to use Node.js as soon as I know what I really want to do with my site.

[shodan]

Are you guys only hosting a single domain on your webservers? I'm hosting like 20 domains

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;44308004]Are you guys only hosting a single domain on your webservers? I'm hosting like 20 domains[/QUOTE]

I'm not hosting any domains at all, and I don't have any domains signed in my name either. Everything happens with direct IP connections for now, but I've considered contacting a few people around and getting hands on one or more domains for free.

[Comfy]

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;44308004]Are you guys only hosting a single domain on your webservers? I'm hosting like 20 domains[/QUOTE]

I'm hosting everything on a single domain.

Personal things are only available trough port 443. (SSL Access only)
Public shit is on Port 80 with no SSL available.

[editline]21st March 2014[/editline]

And some junk is on 8080

[editline]21st March 2014[/editline]

Reason for this being, I can't be bothered to buy a second domain.

[lavacano]

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;44307772]What structure do you guys use for your webservers? I'm thinking of changing it a bit.

Mine is this at the moment.

/srv
`-- www
    `-- DOMAIN
       |-- logs
       |   |-- access.log
       |   `-- error.log
       `-- public_html
           |--  CONTENT
           {...}

[/QUOTE]

/var/http
`-- domain.tld
    |-- !log
    |   `-- error.log
    |-- www.80
    |   `-- index.html
    `-- subdomain.port
        `-- index.html

[nikomo]

I know it's Moronix, but: [url]http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_catalyst_kernel&num=1[/url]

AMD is going to make Catalyst an userspace binary, that is reliant on the open-source drivers.
Right now, the drivers require a full compiler stack installed, because you can't distribute non-open modules legally, if they link to the kernel, so under the current module, the drivers are installed, a module is compiled and inserted, and then stuff usually works.

Under the new model, the open-source drivers live inside the kernel like they do right now, and then AMD distributes a closed userspace binary, which doesn't link to the kernel, so they can do that legally, and it works with the open-source drivers that are in the kernel.
So, you install a Linux distribution, you're using the open-source drivers, you decide you want to sacrifice freedom for some 3D performance, you install the userspace kernel, and now you're running AMD's proprietary graphics solution, which sits on top of the open-source drivers.

[rilez]

Would that work with something like KMS so my tty isn't at like 800x600 resolution

Because I hate that shit

[mastersrp]

[QUOTE=rilez;44323143]Would that work with something like KMS so my tty isn't at like 800x600 resolution

Because I hate that shit[/QUOTE]

Do the open source drivers solve this? If so, then yes.

[nikomo]

It's worth noting that even the AMD developers aren't 100% sure that it's going to work out.
It's a fairly massive project, and it involves code in the kernel, so shit is going to get complex, if they manage to get the project going.

[Jookia]

[QUOTE=nikomo;44322024]I know it's Moronix, but: [url]http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_catalyst_kernel&num=1[/url]

AMD is going to make Catalyst an userspace binary, that is reliant on the open-source drivers.
Right now, the drivers require a full compiler stack installed, because you can't distribute non-open modules legally, if they link to the kernel, so under the current module, the drivers are installed, a module is compiled and inserted, and then stuff usually works.

Under the new model, the open-source drivers live inside the kernel like they do right now, and then AMD distributes a closed userspace binary, which doesn't link to the kernel, so they can do that legally, and it works with the open-source drivers that are in the kernel.
So, you install a Linux distribution, you're using the open-source drivers, you decide you want to sacrifice freedom for some 3D performance, you install the userspace kernel, and now you're running AMD's proprietary graphics solution, which sits on top of the open-source drivers.[/QUOTE]

This is what they proposed for nVidia and Nouveau.