devil-linux-discuss — General Mailing List for all discussions

[Devil-Linux-discuss] Devil from pen

[Heroi No L. <hd...@ly...>]

Hello all.
<br>
<br>Is it possible to run devil from a pen disk, instead of CD/HD?
<br>
<br>Thanks,
<br>hdm

[Devil-Linux-discuss] Grub on Disk

[Heroi No L. <hd...@ly...>]

Hello.
<br>
<br>I want to make a few changes on grub configurations but still to run from CD. Is it possible to "install" grub on disk with the necessary changes? If so, where is the "menu.lst" original? How do I do it?
<br>
<br>Thanks,
<br>hdm

[Devil-Linux-discuss] Upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3

[Peter J. <P.J...@vi...>]

Upgrade 2 firewall from 1.2 to 1.3.6 (10-Sep-2008) and I have the some
problems:

Install-on-usb is not working with ext2. When linux boot I get a error
can't mount.... I changed to ext3 and it works.

Syslogd is remove. The scripts and config are there but syslogd is
missing. So switch to syslog-ng. 

pptpd / pppd is not working any more (same configuration on 1.2 works
ok). No error but pptp connection dead.

I use new hardware 'Jetway VIA C7 MINI-ITX board'. I found out that the
system time is instable when using the onboard lan. So I want to known
which time clock is used. So I Configure syslog-ng to write all message
to /var/log/messages so I get the kernel boot log. And I found that de
kernel boot messages are missing. Looking in initrd/linuxrc I see that
klogd is started to suppress kernel warnings. Why is this????? I want
the kernel warning and info messages!

[Devil-Linux-discuss] pppd in 1.3

[Peter J. <P.J...@vi...>]

pppd seems not workin in 1.3. After switch from 1.2 to 1.3 pppd is not
working anymore.
Connection get establisch but no data going thru.
 
With tcpdump is see that all data packetjes ar rejected.
    GREv1, call 512, seq 38, length 220: compressed PPP data
    GREv1, call 13167, seq 38, ack 38, length 228: LCP, Prot-Reject
(0x08), id 25, length 212

Is this a configuration problem or is pppd dead in 1.3? 
 
Way is pppd version 2.4.3 + patch used and not 2.4.4?
 
-- Peter

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Configure VLANS

[Frank W. <Fra...@ct...>]

On Wednesday 08 October 2008 13:02:10 Heroi No Last wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> Is there is "correct" way to configure vlans on DL (configuration files
> that are read on booting), or running a script after boot is the only way?
>
> TIA,
> -vcf

Yep there is:

in /etc/sysconfig/nic

ifcfg-eth1 looks like this:
#
# example for a BASE INTERFACE FOR VLAN
# see also
#   ifcfg-vlan100.sample
#
DHCP=no
ONBOOT=yes
DEVICE=eth1
# it is essential that you leave the IP at 0.0.0.0 if
# you want to do vlans on this interface
IP=0.0.0.0
# currently only the e100, e1000 and tg3 modules are known to support vlan 
tagging
MODULE=e1000
#MODULE_OPTS=


Then, creat files for each vlan. ifcfg-vlan10 looks like this


#
# example for a VLAN INTERFACE with vlan-id 10
# see also
#   ifcfg-eth1.sample
#
DHCP=no
ONBOOT=yes
# the base interface (see ifcfg-eth1.sample for configuration)
DEVICE=eth1
### note: 0 < vlanid < 4095
VLANID=10
IP=172.16.0.1
NETMASK=255.255.0.0
#



Hth,

Frank
-- 
_______________________________________________
 Centre de Technologie de l'Education
 29 avenue John F. Kennedy
 L-1855 Luxembourg-Kirchberg
 email: Fra...@ct...
 tél.: +352 247-85973
 fax: +352 333797
 _______________________________________________

[Devil-Linux-discuss] Configure VLANS

[Heroi No L. <hd...@ly...>]

Hello all.
<br>
<br>Is there is "correct" way to configure vlans on DL (configuration files that are read on booting), or running a script after boot is the only way?
<br>
<br>TIA,
<br>-vcf
<br>

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] iptstate and /proc/net/ip_conntrack? in DL 1.2.15?

[Jacob S. <dev...@js...>]

I am not entiraly shure but it might be an issue of not activating the
module ip_conntrack?

/sbin/modprobe ip_conntrack

 

I do not see it missing on my machines but the latest I have is 1.2.13.

 

Kind regards.

 

Från: Mike Burkett [mailto:mi...@bu...] 
Skickat: den 7 oktober 2008 17:45
Till: Dev...@li...
Ämne: [Devil-Linux-discuss] iptstate and /proc/net/ip_conntrack? in DL
1.2.15?

 

I'm using DL 1.2.15 and see that iptstate isn't working because
/proc/net/ip_conntrack isn't there...

 

1) Is this going to cause any other problems besides iptstate not running?

2) Is there a known patch/fix for this?

 

Thanks!

[Devil-Linux-discuss] iptstate and /proc/net/ip_conntrack? in DL 1.2.15?

[Mike B. <mi...@bu...>]

I'm using DL 1.2.15 and see that iptstate isn't working because
/proc/net/ip_conntrack isn't there...
1) Is this going to cause any other problems besides iptstate not running?
2) Is there a known patch/fix for this?

Thanks!

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Dr. A. B. <be...@ec...>]

I agree.
I have a very "alpha" webmin for DL (start for a client) but it's impossible
for systems with low memory (var/lib/wembin had 9MB+ and in 128MB I had a
kernel panic for out memory)

Alberto

+--------------------------+
|   Dott. Alberto Benati   |
|   System Administrator   |
|   Faculty of Economics   |
|  University of  Ferrara  |
| be...@ec... |
|  Tel: +39 0532 45 5012   |
+--------------------------+


---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Bruce Smith" <bw...@re...>
To: dev...@li...
Sent: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:41:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

> > >> I chose DL for its simplicity and for being so light on system resources.
> > >> Well done guys, keep up the good work.
> >
> > The users have spoken !
> >
> > I'm glad you guys care more about getting DL 1.3 working then a web interface.
> > The web interface would have been optional, we would never force you
> > to use only webmin.
> >
> > Time is at a premium lately, that's why we're progressing so slowly with 1.3.
> > If we have any more volunteers to work on certain tasks please contact
> > us. The more help we get, the faster 1.3 will become stable. Only
> > serious requests please!
> 
> Absolutely!  And  I agree that if we add webmin, or some other config
> GUI, it will be completely optional, just like the 'setup' command is
> optional.
> 
> Right now there are packages in DL that I don't use, as I'm sure is
> true for everyone else.  One more package like webmin won't hurt
> anything, as long as it's NOT manditory.
> 
>  - BS
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win 
> great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event 
> anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
------- End of Original Message -------

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Bruce S. <bw...@re...>]

> >> I chose DL for its simplicity and for being so light on system resources.
> >> Well done guys, keep up the good work.
>
> The users have spoken !
>
> I'm glad you guys care more about getting DL 1.3 working then a web interface.
> The web interface would have been optional, we would never force you
> to use only webmin.
>
> Time is at a premium lately, that's why we're progressing so slowly with 1.3.
> If we have any more volunteers to work on certain tasks please contact
> us. The more help we get, the faster 1.3 will become stable. Only
> serious requests please!

Absolutely!  And  I agree that if we add webmin, or some other config
GUI, it will be completely optional, just like the 'setup' command is
optional.

Right now there are packages in DL that I don't use, as I'm sure is
true for everyone else.  One more package like webmin won't hurt
anything, as long as it's NOT manditory.

 - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Quoting "Markus Winkler" <ml...@ir...>:

> On 05.10.2008 19:27 Chris Grove wrote:
>>
>> I chose DL for its simplicity and for being so light on system resources.
>> Well done guys, keep up the good work.

The users have spoken !

I'm glad you guys care more about getting DL 1.3 working then a web interface.
The web interface would have been optional, we would never force you  
to use only webmin.

Time is at a premium lately, that's why we're progressing so slowly with 1.3.
If we have any more volunteers to work on certain tasks please contact  
us. The more help we get, the faster 1.3 will become stable. Only  
serious requests please!

-- 

Regards
   Heiko Zuerker
   http://www.devil-linux.org


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Dick M. <di...@fo...>]

Peter Jannesen wrote:
> This is not working 100%.... For a intel card eepro100 and e100 is
> loaded.. I am looking for a way to disable the eepro100 (In the past bad
> experience fo I prefeer e100).

You do this by blacklisting the driver in modprobe.d/

Create a file in that dir with a line:

blacklist e100

and it will be ignored at load time.

Check modutils man page.

Dick

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Martin H. <ma...@ho...>]

Hi,

 

I second the posts regarding a slim DL. Use the CLI. If you are _only_
able to click through a Webgui than you probably have little knowledge
about security, too.

 

We currently use DL as one of our BGP routers (we'll dump DL if we had
to configure BGP through a webinterface) and at some customers DL
works as a firewall and mailfilter. (as for small firewall-only
devices we switched to mikrotik routerboards).

 

put the time and effort into a stable 2.6 kernel (IPv6, etc.).

 

martin

 

 

From: Chris Grove [mailto:dj_...@ti...] 
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 7:27 PM
To: dev...@li...
Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

 

I also agree. I chose DL for its simplicity and for being so light on
system resources.  All I wanted was a simple, lightweight, easy to use
file and printer server and that's what I got. Well done guys, keep up
the good work.

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Peter J. <P.J...@vi...>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Serge Leschinsky [mailto:fi...@in...] 
> Sent: zondag 5 oktober 2008 19:47
> To: dev...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Bruce Smith wrote:
> >>> http://www.linux.com/feature/147977
> >> Seems like his only major complain is the lack of a GUI.
> 
> > One other thing we need is automatic hardware detection, especially 
> > for network cards.
> We already have it in 1.3 as a side effect of using udev. If 
> you check the list of loaded modules just after login prompt 
> appears you will see that not only pata/sata/scsi and network 
> modules but hardware sensors (lm_sensors and
> watchdogs) are loaded... I think we can add a comment to 
> setup (or interface
> examples) that module defining is optional now.

This is not working 100%.... For a intel card eepro100 and e100 is
loaded.. I am looking for a way to disable the eepro100 (In the past bad
experience fo I prefeer e100).

But please keep devil-linux small and stable. The current 1.3 branch
still needs some cleaning. Devil-linux started as a firewall os. At the
moment is getting bigger with non firewall releated stuff.

I wood like to have compact flash version so no readonly root fs. For
example install-to-compactflash: Create a booting ext3 file system with
the file tree (no loop mounting iso image).

-- Peter

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Markus W. <ml...@ir...>]

On 05.10.2008 19:27 Chris Grove wrote:
> 
> I chose DL for its simplicity and for being so light on system resources.
> Well done guys, keep up the good work.

Me too.

Regards,
Markus

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Hello,

Bruce Smith wrote:
>>> http://www.linux.com/feature/147977
>> Seems like his only major complain is the lack of a GUI.

> One other thing we need is automatic hardware detection, especially
> for network cards.
We already have it in 1.3 as a side effect of using udev. If you check the list
of loaded modules just after login prompt appears you will see that not only
pata/sata/scsi and network modules but hardware sensors (lm_sensors and
watchdogs) are loaded... I think we can add a comment to setup (or interface
examples) that module defining is optional now.


>> Maybe we need to revisit Webmin for DL, but the initial implementation
>> may take quite some time.
> 
> I've never used Webmin, but that might be a good option.
Neither have I. Probably it will be easy to begin using DL, but developers and
community surely will be faced with questions and requests like "I can't do it
using webmain, please add the functionality...". IMHO we should push DL users to
learn and use CLI instead of webmin/whatever...

--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Chris G. <dj_...@ti...>]

I also agree. I chose DL for its simplicity and for being so light on system
resources.  All I wanted was a simple, lightweight, easy to use file and
printer server and that's what I got. Well done guys, keep up the good work.

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Ashwin M. <ash...@ya...>]

> I had not chosen DL if it was not so stripped from "unessential stuff".

Same here, keep it simple and efficient and effective the way it is.

GUI and frills will increase the popularity, but not much of the serious user base.

The effort to be spent on frills and GUI can be put instead for more/improvement in documentation of DL with more examples of firewall under various scenarios and similar such things. One more area to concentrate sooner than expected would be support for solid state hard disks and improved stability with 2.6 kernels and kernel virtualization.

with Regards,
ASHWIN









      

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Jacob S. <dev...@js...>]

Hi,

I must say that for me not having to deal with gui and so on is one of the
main features of Devil-Linux.

That's kind of what "It is created from IT Administators for IT
Administrators." means to me. 

And the articles "However, Devil-Linux is designed to be lightweight, so
don't expect a graphical interface or support for X Window System." is a
selling point for me.

The operating system is made for administrators with all the freedom real
knowledge about how to administer a Linuxsytem gives. And the speed of not
being cluttered with unessential stuff. 

Guibased systems usually means that as soon as you do something specialized
all other configuration breaks, or is resets over and over - just my
experience.

I had not chosen DL if it was not so stripped from "unessential stuff".

And do not see any benefit in having a guibased system such as webmin, if I
need easy macros I make them myself, and if I want users to control stuff I
create the gui for them just allowing the limited changes needed.

Mostly I do not even use setup :)

That said I guess that I can chose not to run webmin, or even not activate
it during creation off a DL media. I just do not see the benefit, there are
already very popular guibased Linux firewalls and you will have to add allot
of features to compete with them, and I'm afraid limitations for us that
like to dig into the system our self.

Kind regards
Jacob


-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Heiko Zuerker [mailto:he...@zu...] 
Skickat: den 5 oktober 2008 15:59
Till: dev...@li...
Ämne: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

Quoting "Bruce Smith" <bw...@re...>:

>>> http://www.linux.com/feature/147977
>>
>> Seems like his only major complain is the lack of a GUI.
>
> I agree a GUI would be a BIG improvement.  Right now we're limited to
> Linux gurus to do anything beyond a basic firewall.  A GUI would open
> DL to many more potential users.
>
> One other thing we need is automatic hardware detection, especially
> for network cards.
>
>> Maybe we need to revisit Webmin for DL, but the initial implementation
>> may take quite some time.
>
> I've never used Webmin, but that might be a good option.
>
> Does Webmin require Apache?  Or will it run with smaller web servers?
> A requirement of Apache would increase the memory requirements.

Webmin is written in Perl and actually brings it's own http(s) server with
it.

> What other options are there, besides Webmin?

Not sure, I'd guess webmin has the most features.


-- 

Regards
   Heiko Zuerker
   http://www.devil-linux.org


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
Dev...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Quoting "Bruce Smith" <bw...@re...>:

>>> http://www.linux.com/feature/147977
>>
>> Seems like his only major complain is the lack of a GUI.
>
> I agree a GUI would be a BIG improvement.  Right now we're limited to
> Linux gurus to do anything beyond a basic firewall.  A GUI would open
> DL to many more potential users.
>
> One other thing we need is automatic hardware detection, especially
> for network cards.
>
>> Maybe we need to revisit Webmin for DL, but the initial implementation
>> may take quite some time.
>
> I've never used Webmin, but that might be a good option.
>
> Does Webmin require Apache?  Or will it run with smaller web servers?
> A requirement of Apache would increase the memory requirements.

Webmin is written in Perl and actually brings it's own http(s) server with it.

> What other options are there, besides Webmin?

Not sure, I'd guess webmin has the most features.


-- 

Regards
   Heiko Zuerker
   http://www.devil-linux.org


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

[Devil-Linux-discuss] e100 module problem

[<kor...@sb...>]

Hi

Seems to be unable to load e100 module for me anymore in 1.2.15-i486 
release. Core dumps.
Never had any problems since 1.2.10 releases with this module. Intel 
cards are preferred...
Going to use eepro100 for now, but looking into future with fixes  :)

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Bruce S. <bw...@re...>]

>> http://www.linux.com/feature/147977
>
> Seems like his only major complain is the lack of a GUI.

I agree a GUI would be a BIG improvement.  Right now we're limited to
Linux gurus to do anything beyond a basic firewall.  A GUI would open
DL to many more potential users.

One other thing we need is automatic hardware detection, especially
for network cards.

> Maybe we need to revisit Webmin for DL, but the initial implementation
> may take quite some time.

I've never used Webmin, but that might be a good option.

Does Webmin require Apache?  Or will it run with smaller web servers?
A requirement of Apache would increase the memory requirements.

What other options are there, besides Webmin?

  - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Quoting "Bruce Smith" <bw...@re...>:

> Just noticed this article about DL:
>
> http://www.linux.com/feature/147977

Seems like his only major complain is the lack of a GUI.
Maybe we need to revisit Webmin for DL, but the initial implementation  
may take quite some time.

-- 

Regards
   Heiko Zuerker
   http://www.devil-linux.org


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Dick M. <di...@fo...>]

Bruce Smith wrote:
> Just noticed this article about DL:
> 
> http://www.linux.com/feature/147977

Nice.  I don't share his obsession with the gui though.  Might also be 
an idea to raise the profile of the policy that DL provides apps as 
obtained from the authors and doesn't provide default configs.

Dick

[Devil-Linux-discuss] In the news ...

[Bruce S. <bw...@re...>]

Just noticed this article about DL:

http://www.linux.com/feature/147977

  - BS