Re: [Sheflug] Re: [Sheflug] Re: Suggestions of distro?

[Richard Lowe <xxxxx [at] xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Richard Lowe (richlowe [at] richlowe.net) wrote:
> * Chris J (cej [at] nccnet.co.uk) wrote:
> > 
> > Richard doodled:
> > > * Chris J (cej [at] nccnet.co.uk) wrote:
> > >> The difficult part with OpenBSD
> > >> is the disk  partitioning as on x86 architecture you have to partition
> > >> the disk with a  *single* partition (well you can use two or more, but
> > >> that gets interesting),  and within that one partition you create a
> > >> disklabel - it doesn't use  "standard" partitions, per se.
> > >
> > > Or when it says "Use entire disk for OpenBSD [y/N]" say Y :)
> > >
> > 
> > Hmm...I've never had the benefit of using that option, always setting the
> > thing up on a single disk to dual or tri boot between OS's. Even on my
> > firewall box it shares space with Win95 (which I need in case I call Telewest
> > out at some point so I have a "supported" OS).
> >
> 
> I'm in the... errrrrr.... I guess in this case lucky, position of
> sharing 33.6 dialup. :)
> 
> 
> > >
> > > The FAQ and install stuff is really well written, I think.
> > 
> > Agreed - OpenBSD's documentation, from the FAQ (which is effectively the
> > users manual) to the man pages are clear and consise and most importantly, up-
> > to-date. Something that can't be said for bits of Linux documnetation
> > (especially with GNU's "man pages are obsolete" attitude).
> > 
> 
> I wouldn't mind that so much, if had enough usability, for me to read
> the info documentation in it :)
>

"if info had enough usability for me to read the info documentation in
it :)"

I dunno, if any of you, have experience of "dayquil" (yank, cough/cold
medicine) but if you do, I'm sure you'll understand why my typing /
grammar / ability to focus, are impared right now :)

> > >> Thus, there's a fair change under the hood to the firewalling for  Open
> > >> 3.0, and some grammer changes needed to the filter and NAT rulesets you
> > >> have.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Not many, most for the better IMHO (being able to list
> > > ports/hosts/protocols in a single rule, is *nice*).
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, I did read that the new filter (called pf [packet filter]) is a lot more
> > flexible than ipf was.
> 
> It would seem that a lot of the changes they wanted to make to ipf, but
> were rejected, are going in there.  I'm not sure though.
> 
> > >
> > > My router is running 3.0-stable, and I have a machine here (x86) running
> > > -current, but I'm not much help regarding grammer changes, since I
> > > haven't used it for packet filtering before now.
> > >
> > 
> > I think the rules affect the NAT more than the filtering, but with the
> > expanded syntax it may be possible to consolidate the original ipf ruleset so
> > there are less rules ... which makes maintaining it a fair chunk easier.
> > 
> > Chris...
> >
> 
> And since I use ppp(8) nat is handled by 'nat enable yes', 'nat
> same_portes yes' in ppp.conf :)

And, well, I have a couple of redirect rules, but I haven't noticed
anything different.

> 
> [ Richard Lowe - richlowe - richlowe [at] richlowe.net ]
> [             http://www.richlowe.net/            ]
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 
> Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk . 
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to 
> shef-lug-request [at] list.sheflug.org.uk with the word
> "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 
> 
>   GNU the choice of a complete generation.
> 
-- 
[ Richard Lowe - richlowe - richlowe [at] richlowe.net ]
[             http://www.richlowe.net/            ]

___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk . 
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to 
shef-lug-request@list.sheflug.org.uk with the word
"unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.