Arch ufw enabling
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
1
To enable UFW in Debian I do:
ufw --force enable
I understand from the Arch documentation that do so in Arch I should do instead:
systemctl start ufw
systemctl enable ufw
By "enabling" I mean "Ensuring UFW will run after each system boot".
Is my way of doing so in Arch totally resembles the way to do so in Debian?
arch-linux ufw
asked Jan 18 at 21:18
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
711133
add a comment |
1
To enable UFW in Debian I do:
ufw --force enable
I understand from the Arch documentation that do so in Arch I should do instead:
systemctl start ufw
systemctl enable ufw
By "enabling" I mean "Ensuring UFW will run after each system boot".
Is my way of doing so in Arch totally resembles the way to do so in Debian?
arch-linux ufw
asked Jan 18 at 21:18
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
711133
"The next line is only needed once the first time you install the package:# ufw enable" wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Uncomplicated_Firewall
– sourcejedi
Jan 18 at 21:40
1
Why not use iptables? UFW is just a way to make iptables simpler and uses more overhead, I know the increase is really unnoticeable. Yet, I get more throughput with just iptables than with UFW. It is a small difference, but it is there.
– Michael Prokopec
Jan 19 at 3:57
add a comment |
1
1
1
To enable UFW in Debian I do:
ufw --force enable
I understand from the Arch documentation that do so in Arch I should do instead:
systemctl start ufw
systemctl enable ufw
By "enabling" I mean "Ensuring UFW will run after each system boot".
Is my way of doing so in Arch totally resembles the way to do so in Debian?
arch-linux ufw
asked Jan 18 at 21:18
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
711133
To enable UFW in Debian I do:
ufw --force enable
I understand from the Arch documentation that do so in Arch I should do instead:
systemctl start ufw
systemctl enable ufw
By "enabling" I mean "Ensuring UFW will run after each system boot".
Is my way of doing so in Arch totally resembles the way to do so in Debian?
arch-linux ufw
arch-linux ufw
asked Jan 18 at 21:18
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
711133
asked Jan 18 at 21:18
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
711133
asked Jan 18 at 21:18
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
711133
asked Jan 18 at 21:18
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
711133
asked Jan 18 at 21:18
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
711133
711133
"The next line is only needed once the first time you install the package:# ufw enable" wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Uncomplicated_Firewall
– sourcejedi
Jan 18 at 21:40
1
Why not use iptables? UFW is just a way to make iptables simpler and uses more overhead, I know the increase is really unnoticeable. Yet, I get more throughput with just iptables than with UFW. It is a small difference, but it is there.
– Michael Prokopec
Jan 19 at 3:57
add a comment |
"The next line is only needed once the first time you install the package:# ufw enable" wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Uncomplicated_Firewall
– sourcejedi
Jan 18 at 21:40
1
Why not use iptables? UFW is just a way to make iptables simpler and uses more overhead, I know the increase is really unnoticeable. Yet, I get more throughput with just iptables than with UFW. It is a small difference, but it is there.
– Michael Prokopec
Jan 19 at 3:57
"The next line is only needed once the first time you install the package:
# ufw enable" wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Uncomplicated_Firewall– sourcejedi
Jan 18 at 21:40
"The next line is only needed once the first time you install the package:
# ufw enable" wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Uncomplicated_Firewall– sourcejedi
Jan 18 at 21:40
1
1
Why not use iptables? UFW is just a way to make iptables simpler and uses more overhead, I know the increase is really unnoticeable. Yet, I get more throughput with just iptables than with UFW. It is a small difference, but it is there.
– Michael Prokopec
Jan 19 at 3:57
Why not use iptables? UFW is just a way to make iptables simpler and uses more overhead, I know the increase is really unnoticeable. Yet, I get more throughput with just iptables than with UFW. It is a small difference, but it is there.
– Michael Prokopec
Jan 19 at 3:57
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
0
It's simply ufw enable - after enabling the service.
answered Jan 18 at 21:43
Ashley PrimoAshley Primo
161
inufw enableI assume you meantsystemctl enable ufw. I accepted your answer though it'll be good if you'll edit to clarify I believe. I really think it'll raise the chance for upvotes ! Thanks !
– JohnDoea
Jan 20 at 22:03
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f495355%2farch-ufw-enabling%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
0
It's simply ufw enable - after enabling the service.
answered Jan 18 at 21:43
Ashley PrimoAshley Primo
161
inufw enableI assume you meantsystemctl enable ufw. I accepted your answer though it'll be good if you'll edit to clarify I believe. I really think it'll raise the chance for upvotes ! Thanks !
– JohnDoea
Jan 20 at 22:03
add a comment |
0
It's simply ufw enable - after enabling the service.
answered Jan 18 at 21:43
Ashley PrimoAshley Primo
161
inufw enableI assume you meantsystemctl enable ufw. I accepted your answer though it'll be good if you'll edit to clarify I believe. I really think it'll raise the chance for upvotes ! Thanks !
– JohnDoea
Jan 20 at 22:03
add a comment |
0
0
0
It's simply ufw enable - after enabling the service.
answered Jan 18 at 21:43
Ashley PrimoAshley Primo
161
It's simply ufw enable - after enabling the service.
answered Jan 18 at 21:43
Ashley PrimoAshley Primo
161
answered Jan 18 at 21:43
Ashley PrimoAshley Primo
161
answered Jan 18 at 21:43
Ashley PrimoAshley Primo
161
answered Jan 18 at 21:43
Ashley PrimoAshley Primo
161
161
inufw enableI assume you meantsystemctl enable ufw. I accepted your answer though it'll be good if you'll edit to clarify I believe. I really think it'll raise the chance for upvotes ! Thanks !
– JohnDoea
Jan 20 at 22:03
add a comment |
inufw enableI assume you meantsystemctl enable ufw. I accepted your answer though it'll be good if you'll edit to clarify I believe. I really think it'll raise the chance for upvotes ! Thanks !
– JohnDoea
Jan 20 at 22:03
in
ufw enable I assume you meant systemctl enable ufw. I accepted your answer though it'll be good if you'll edit to clarify I believe. I really think it'll raise the chance for upvotes ! Thanks !– JohnDoea
Jan 20 at 22:03
in
ufw enable I assume you meant systemctl enable ufw. I accepted your answer though it'll be good if you'll edit to clarify I believe. I really think it'll raise the chance for upvotes ! Thanks !– JohnDoea
Jan 20 at 22:03
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f495355%2farch-ufw-enabling%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
"The next line is only needed once the first time you install the package:
# ufw enable" wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Uncomplicated_Firewall– sourcejedi
Jan 18 at 21:40
1
Why not use iptables? UFW is just a way to make iptables simpler and uses more overhead, I know the increase is really unnoticeable. Yet, I get more throughput with just iptables than with UFW. It is a small difference, but it is there.
– Michael Prokopec
Jan 19 at 3:57