> Good point about the point-n-click approach. It's not just Windows either.
> Mac does it too, of course, but most apps in Linux are amenable to the PNC
> approach, so I figured it'd work here too. I have nothing against shells,
> but I don't go out of my way to use 'em. In any case, I have little
> patience with the philosophy that I prove my manhood by performing a
> computing task in the most difficult manner possible. Even the Linux
> bigots are getting out of that way of thinking, which is why Linux is
> beginning to approach usability for ordinary folk. Why, I'm using it right
> now. My hands...they're soaking in it! :-)
Solaris is why you used to be able to make a good living being a unix system
administrator. It basically expects you to know all the low level commands
and details. On Sun hardware you were expected to have the hardware docs
and be able to figure out from the info from the hardware prompt or from
prtconf what you had, though you could guess from the /dev driver names.
This didn't work out so good in practice when you administered 100's of
remote systems you never saw before.
Anyway, Sun never did do a decent UI for admin like Aix's SMIT. I haven't
used Aix since 3.0 but SMIT was better then than anything on Linux today.
SMIT also had an option to show you the low level commands it used so
you knew what to use for expert mode stuff. Get somebody to show you
SMIT on Aix.
Solaris uses the basic standard network and tcp commands, i.e.
ifconfig (similar but not the same as win32 ipconfig)
netstat (win32 took theirs from unix, BSD probably)
route - set and display routing table (netstat displays routing table info too)
ping, traceroute, etc...
/etc/resolv.conf -- your name server. dhcp sets this. you don't need
to mess with it unless you're doing static configuration or debugging.
dhcp stuff I don't know off hand since I don't have my Solaris box fired up.
I think you have answers from others on this already.
Config stuff is in /etc/init.d/ and/or /etc/rc.d/. grep is your friend here.
The naming convention for the start/stop scripts is quite arcane. Linux
uses the chkconfig command to try to deal with this.
You should get a decent book on unix and tcp/ip network administration.
Most of the stuff will help you in debugging network problems on Linux
and on windows as well (ipconfig, netstat, tracert, ...).
> Anyway, I opened a shell and typed man sys-unconfig and there it was. So
> never mind about that troff stuff. Then I tried running sys-unconfig in
> the shell, and it started up as well. How cool.
> All this blundering raises a question. Why'd I have to open a shell to do
> this? There's a Run Application icon on the menu. I clicked it and up
> popped a command window. Yesterday I typed both these commands into that
> window, and of course nothing happened. It was only after unsuccessfully
> doing this that I came crawling back here, confused as heck. In Solaris,
> you have a window for running commands, but the commands don't run. But
> type the exact same commands in a shell window, and the commands do run.
> What's the Run Application window for if it won't run applications? In
> Windows, this feature works fine. If you know the app name and path, you
> just type it into the run app window and it fires up. Solaris doesn't seem
> to work that way. Why not?
The command or app window is somebody's idea of something useful for the desktop/windows
manager you're running. It's useless. I usually just delete it from my desktop
and use xterm which is your basic X shell window. There are other terms as well.
If an X app doesn't fire up, it should give an error message. Typically something
like display not found. If that's the case, check your display environment variable.
The typical problem is it not being set. Your shell profile (depends on shell,
echo $SHELL) isn't setting it up or sets it incorrectly. Should be something
like myhost:0 or myhost:0.0. :0 might work. It's been a while since I screwed
around with X problems other than get Linix to configure my display.
(I have yet to get a Linux distro do this correctly, even when the install was
done in graphics mode it will still configure my display incorrectly.)
A good unix admin book will have a section on administering X windows.
A note on why MS windows seems to be easier to install and configure. It's because
Microsoft makes the hw vendors do all the work of making sure their hardware installs
and configures well. Since MS windows is the biggest market for these vendors, their
survival depends on this. Linux works because lots of people put in a lot of time
writing drivers. Linux is also gaining enough market share that vendors are doing
a better job of supporting their stuff for Linux. Solaris used to be all propietary
Sun hardware with some independent hw vendors but it was high end server oriented
(meaning expensive). So you're going to see limited hw support for Solaris.