Sharing Drives

[TechGuy]

I have SAMBA working and I want my entire winblows drive shared to linux and the entire linux drive shared to the win box. Can someone tell me how to do this?

Thanks

http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Craig McPherson]

Share your C: drive on your Windows box. Call it "C". In Linux, you can mount it like this:

mount -t smbfs \\\\windows\\c /mnt/windows

Share your entire Linux filesystem with Samba by defining a share with a root of "/". Then mount it in Windows like you would any other share. (Like getting to it through Network Neighborhood, or the "Map Network Drive" function)

[guitarlyn]

God Craig, you do hate the GUI don't you?

In Windows, right-click "C" drive, select Properties, then the Sharing tab. Choose to
"Share this resource", name it, and set a password (if desired).

In Linux, right-click the "/" folder, select "Windows Sharing..." and enable group rw access. You will also need to change the Group ownership to your Windows Workgroup name and enable the GID sticky bit.

These should now show up in your Samba shares.

Isn't that easy????
~Guitarlynn

[Craig McPherson]

guitarlyn:

The problem with that is that it's ENTIRELY dependent on what window manager/desktop environment the user is using. You should never assume that the user is using a particular window manager or anything else of the sort -- but everyone has a shell. Your way might be the KDE way of doing things, but what about GNOME? What about CDE? What about Enlightenment without GNOME? What about icewm? What about no X Window System installed at all? What if someone is just using the console? What about if some is using Berlin or the Y Window System instead of X?

For the love of Pete, WHY do you insist of fracturing everything into 50 different window-manager specific ways of doing things? Can you not stop and THINK for a second that other people might not be using a system configured exactly the same way yours is? Some people use different window managers, different software, even *gasp* different distros. It's all well and good that you know how to do something with YOUR distro, under YOUR desktop environment, under YOUR window manager, but maybe you should stop and think that not all Linux boxen are the same. I personally have never seen a "/ folder" to right-click on. What are these "folder" things you speak of? I've used Linux for years and I've never seen one. What I HAVE seen, when I CAN get to, and what EVERYBODY can get to is a shell.

Please try to stay in the shell rather than fracturing off into hundreds of different, incompatible wm-specific, desktop-specific, distro-specific, pseudo-solutions that only serve to create incompatibility and ambiguity and prevent people from learning what's really going on.

[guitarlyn]

Craig,

That is fair enough of a statement and reflected by many people @all Linux sites. The fact be known, most newbie's are using KDE, then Gnome, as default with the predominant distro's they are using. If they did not specify a distro/WM they are using, I will assume the most likely combinations. This would be Mandrake and KDE unless otherwise specified.
Your first reply would connect to the proper share, assuming that it is shared (is that a fair assumption to make... not default in any distro) or the fact that they know how to enable it as a share (in which your reply does not approach at all). How many people are running Debian here w/o a WM.... You probably!
Based on previous posts, I have some idea what this particular poster is running for a distro and WM, maybe I should not make reply's based on past info from the poster... but I think this is a fair assumption also. You seem opposed to approach anything but pure Debian, Samba has moved on with many other distro's especially in the GUI section. I think I have helped many people using many distro's with advice steered towards their particular distro, I will not dwell purely in the shell if there is an easier way. Many things are different between distro's even at the shell because of the filesystem's differences which your approach has not considered at this point. Samba itself has major differences at different releases and must also be approached differently.

An assumption is an assumption,
Yours or mine, they both have their advantages,
~Guitarlynn

[TechGuy]

Ok guys...Let's not fight http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif

Redhat 7 with KDE.

Guitar:

Using KDFM I do not get anything when right clicking on the / folder....

[Craig McPherson]

Then go to a root prompt and mount it from there. Make sure you create your mount point as an empty directory. You can also access a Windows share with an FTP-like interface with the smbclient program.

smbclient \\\\windows\\c

You can also mount with the "smbmount" program, but the man pages recommend you do "mount -t smbfs"

[TechGuy]

Ok I think the command line worked on the mounting the win drive so how do i see it now?

[Craig McPherson]

You mean the "mount -t smbfs \\\\windows\\c /mnt/windows" command?

If the command worked and it mounted successfully, you just go to the /mnt/windows directory, and there's your mounted filesystem, just as if it were part of your local filesystem. Good stuff.

Don't forget to unmount it when you're done (umount /mnt/windows), other wise you'll get all kinds of weird IO errors if the Windows box shuts down while you have one of its fileshares mounted.

[Lorithar]

*grins*

assume QED .. makes an a** out of u and me

[TechGuy]

When I use the mount -t ....command I don't get any errors. But..I don't have a mnt/windows directory under /mnt?

What's up with this?

[Craig McPherson]

mkdir /mnt/windows

(Sigh)

[roofrabbit]

Originally posted by Craig McPherson:
(Sigh)

LOL - Users should learn you need a created directory to mount to.

[TechGuy]

I'm sorry I'm being such a pain. I have done exactly what ya'll said to type. I have the windows folder now as /mnt/windows but when I type the mount command you gave me and then open the folder nothing is in it.

[Craig McPherson]

Okay, you do this command, as root:

mount -t smbfs \\\\windows\\c /mnt/windows

If the share is passworded, it should ask you for the password at this point.

You don't get any errors?

Then you switch to the directory, like this:

cd /mnt/windows

Check the directory contents, like this:

ls

You don't see anything in the directory?

[guitarlyn]

hehe, your still making a lot of assumptions.

hint, the "windows" in the command is the name of your windows box.

[Coral Sea]

Looks like we got a furball goin' here so I'll add my two cents.

One of the appeals for me in using Linux is the power of the command line. For short commands, like mounting a share, it's cool to use a command rather than fart around with clicking this and clicking that.

But, hey, whatever works for you, right?

BTW, I think you'll find it just as easy -- probably easier -- to mount a share in Linux using a command line. After you've had fun with that, specify the share in your /etc/fstab file and never worry about it again. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Visit my Web Site at http://members.home.net/2826651556/

[iDxMan]

Originally posted by guitarlyn:
Many things are different between distro's even at the shell because of the filesystem's differences which your approach has not considered at this point. Samba itself has major differences at different releases and must also be approached differently.


Almost a point, but not with commands like mount and smbclient. You're going to be in the ballpark unless you have some dead-***-old samba version. (he has redhat 7. I'd say the samba install will be up to date)

The point to remember is that when it does work from the CLI method, it will now work for anything in the future.

eg: He goes to a friend's house/new job/stuff/BSD/solaris/etc and it doesn't have the pretty button that wang'ed it into place before.. He can still mount the share without the WM/GUI tool. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

-r

[Pleiades]

I like you, Craig. Your disdain for those at a lower level (of any description) than yours gives me comfort in knowing I am not alone. I wish I lived the States, so I could work for you. One day soon.

[Craig McPherson]

Originally posted by Pleiades:
I like you, Craig. Your disdain for those at a lower level

No, my only disdain is for people who give bad advice to innocent newbies. The newbies then wind up shooting themselves in the foot, or floundering helplessly, until they say "LINUX SUX!!!" and boot back into Windows, because some guy assumed he knew everything and tried to help him when he didn't really know what was going on. That's the only thing that gets my goat. Until people reach a certain level of confidence, they should stick to ASKING questions, not ANSWERING them, because if they try to do the latter, they often do more harm than good.

[Coral Sea]

Craig, I'm sure that those who offer answers do so in all sincerity with the intention of bringing another dissatisfied Windoze user into the Linux flock.

Yup, some Linux users are more experienced and, heck, some are even smarter than others. But, until we have some universal Linux "You Now the Right to Answer Questions" certification exam, on balance it's probably better to have more people trying to answer questions than not.

The method offered by one individual is different than what you would have recommended. The beauty of Linux (and even in Windoze, sometimes) is that there are multiple ways to skin the proverbial cat. Knowing the different ways makes us smarter, not dumber.

An open-minded, multi-faceted Linux user (answerer, asker, frolicker, whatever) is a good thing, isn't it? http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Visit my Web Site at http://members.home.net/2826651556/

[Craig McPherson]

What I'm saying is... offer incorrect or bad advice if you want, but don't cry when you're gently corrected. I do scold people when they're incorrect, but it's out of love, not anger or contempt. I correct people not because of any selfish reason, but because I want them to learn what's correct and stop being wrong. Unfortunately, people seem to take it as a personal offense whenever they're corrected, rather than seeing it as a personal opportunity for growth and improvement.

Ah well.

[Coral Sea]

Okay, your passion for Linux and "correctness" shows. That's good too. Hey everybody, let's have fun with Linux (the kind of fun we couldn't find with Billy's Baby!).

------------------
Visit my Web Site at http://members.home.net/2826651556/

[singlespeed]

Craig,

If I may offer a bit of advise from someone who is often accused IRL of being to "harsh" with my opinions/advise it would be that I believe your first points about the gui's and distro's was right on, the execution of expressing those points lacked finesse. Step away for a few days and then go back and re-read what you wrote to Guitarlyn with an open and fresh mind. Whether you meant to or not (and I don’t believe you meant to) you were using a tone that was talking down to him. That prompted a reaction from him. It always will. Basically what I’m saying is that HOW you say things is as important as WHAT you are saying. This “style” of yours appeared again later on in the thread with the (sigh) comment. Newbies are newbies, nobody is born with knowledge and patience is a virtue. A comment with a “sigh” can give a newbie the impression that they’re bothering you or that you think they’re dumb.

You're obviously a very knowledgable person when it comes to Linux and the CLI. As such your posts are an important part of LNO. Please don't alienate poeple from the benefits of your knowledge by talking down to them or others in the community. If your tone truely was unintentional as I suspect it was, just try to be more aware of it in the future.

I’ve found that it’s very hard to convey “tone of voice” in cyber space unless you’re a very accomplished writer. Most of us here aren’t, myself included.

Guitarlyn had some inside info that we didn’t know about (the specific WM and distro of the original poster) and was posting accordingly. If I were to critique Guitarlyn I would request that any “inside” info he has and is posting on should be expressed as there are more people who will read the thread than the original poster and it will help them to follow.

As for the CLI and WM, I think solutions should be posted with both methods but I would lean toward the CLI because of it’s portability and the fact that most Windows user are unfamiliar with it. It’s good for them to get used to a CLI environment. As long as the methods posted are correct (for the particular environment) then the more the better. We all may learn a new trick or two.

anyway, that's just my 2 cents worth.... ;)

[ 02 February 2001: Message edited by: singlespeed ]

[Coral Sea]

Amen.

[Ryeker]

(sorry for being off topic...)

People should stop taking these post so personally!

TechGuy, did you get it to work?

[TechGuy]

Well what a response! Yes I am using the SMB protocol and it is working fine now. Part of the problem I was having was the permission settings on the win box (which i should have known better as an ex employee of MS). Thanks to everyone for the help. And...Guitar guy was right I did not know the windows meant the name of the win box. Thanks again to everyone.

[Guitarlynn]

I must admit the statement really flamed me considerably. I decided I should take some time to cool off, take a good look at what was _actually_ being said, and send a post that better explains my angle.

First off, IMHO the problem lied in the fact that by default, neither of the desired shares will ever be shared by default (or suggested for that matter). If so, they would have shown up in the smbclient/SMBrowser. I felt that the post to "just mount the share" was not the problem, rather setting up the shares would work.

Second, I have nothing against the CLI. Rather, I prefer it... I am in the process of writing a custom distro (Debian-based) for "simple-setup servers with the high-performance". In other words, this will include Grub, ReiserFS, a dedicated prog to setup certain types of servers (http, ftp, NAT/proxy/routing/bridge, firewall, clustering, etc) from selected the type of server(s) you desire and being prompted for the necessary info. This will be total CLI, no GUI (for performance reasons). This is not new for experts, but instead will be a faster install in the regards to time compared to other distro's that require you to either install or uninstall packages and dig for conf files to get from point A to point B for the desired end result. It is just a example in efficiency that many people have desired to find that simply doesn't exist at this time in any distro. The CLI, doesn't bother me in the least.

Third, the CLI is not necessarily the best or suggested method for helping newbie's. If all people starting in Linux were confined to only using the CLI, how many would use it? Remember 2-3 years ago? Oh boy (Mr. Newbie) I have to use the CLI, OK, fdisk!
If there is an GUI way of doing it, use it!
Those coders didn't develop the pretty GUI progs for happily CLI members of our community, they did it for people who are dedicated with GUI OS's. I ALWAYS try to keep this in mind.
The CLI environment, like the GUI, DO NOT always stay the same between distro's. Some do not use bash unless you add it and specify it as your shell by hand. Configuration of common things like XFree86 Config and networking tools vary extremely from distro to distro and release to release. Your point is well taken to the fact that the CLI is more consistant between distro's and versions, but this is hardly a hard rule and has _many_ prime example's where the GUI is actually more consistant in certain circumstances. In example, does the XConfigurator work in any Debian disto? Is smb.conf in the same place between all distro's? Does "ifconfig" work on ipchains or iptables? My point is there inconsistancies in both environments.

Fourth, until newbie's actually do some reading on the problem they're having (docs, NHF's, or past posts), post all relevant infomation to provide sufficent troubleshooting, and provide distro, version, GUI information (not to mention what they have done to setup/modify the system) we will make errors in giving help pertaining to their information and make assumptions.

Please do not bash anothers methods
until you can perfect your own.

I've never seen a perfect troubleshooter
based on the particular assumptions made by
that person, myself included.

~Guitarlynn