On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM, TechGuy <techguy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Please point out what shortcut that I tried to take? From my email,
> with the information I provided which I did get from various sources
> including the wiki tips and tricks, and other sites... If you read my
> questions you would see that I was asking for clarification on what I
> was understanding all these sources to say and imply.
>
Forgive me for not answering your questions directly. To wit:
>> This would appear to indicate the mount was successful correct?
Yes, of course. (Meaning: that should be pretty obvious, even to newbies.)
>> If I understand this whole thing, if i change directory to
>> /var/www/dekiwiki/attachments would I then be using or looking at
>> //fs01/wikidata ?
Essentially, yes, of course.
>> Or am I still looking at the local file system?
No, of course not.
>> Or does it depend on the user?
That depends on the usage rights in the mounted file system.
> I don't know what shortcut I was taking by asking what I asked?
The shortcut I perceived in what you asked was that you wanted someone
here to tell you what the mount command does and what its effects are.
This is something anyone attempting to mess with /etc/fstab should
know before said messing. It's like assigning a Windows disk drive
letter to <something> and then asking "what did that do?"
> Now I am just tired of having to defend myself for no good reason.
Then don't. It's not really necessary, and it really doesn't help
(trust me on this one).
> Sorry this has transpired, truly am because I was hoping for more both
> from CentOS and from the community that supports it and is always
> touting the values of Linux and OpenSource, I was hoping to become a
> convert finally but instead I am more discouraged now after the
> reponses I have gotten then I was before.
I actually did not read your original posting until after I saw
Lanny's response to your offense at Akemi's advice, which was good
advice. Then I decided that this was kind of odd and read the whole
thread. I'm not offended that you don't think so, though I find it
somewhat unsettling that you somehow missed what the mount command
actually does in all of your reading.
In fact, from 'man mount', the first three paragaphs:
All files accessible in a Unix system are arranged in one big tree, the
file hierarchy, rooted at /. These files can be spread out over sev-
eral devices. The mount command serves to attach the file system found
on some device to the big file tree. Conversely, the umount(8) command
will detach it again.
The standard form of the mount command, is
mount -t type device dir
This tells the kernel to attach the file system found on device (which
is of type type) at the directory dir. The previous contents (if any)
and owner and mode of dir become invisible, and as long as this file
system remains mounted, the pathname dir refers to the root of the file
system on device.
Maybe I've been doing Unix/Linux too long, but it seems to me that
these three paragraphs answered all of your questions. As you
yourself pointed out, reading is important. That's why I read your
questions, and that's why I couldn't understand how you could read the
above man page elements and /not/ understand what it means.
That's why I made the comments I did, including the self-deprecation I
thought you might find informative, possibly even amusing, but that
seems to have gone awry as well. Perhaps I need to work on my own
writing skills as well, but newbies have responsibilities, too. In my
eyes, these were neither assumed nor fulfilled.
mhr
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
