On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:51 PM, MHR <mhullrich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
Seems my mistake has been in focusing on mount.cifs and not just mount
itself. After reading what you posted I checked man mount which is
much more informative then mount.cifs.
I got to mount.cifs because I started out searching for info on
mounting windows shares. Originally my searching and reading had me
focused on samba. That was until I read something about samba being
deprecated and replaced with cifs. In hunting down cifs I was lead to
mount.cifs.
I appreciate this response as it was helpful and insightful. It
should seem obvious that I somewhat understood things, and wanted
clarification or affirmation if you will from the experts that what I
was understanding was correct.
Thanks for your time and your response, it is appreciated and made me
realize an oversight of my own that I need to be more aware of. My
guess is there are other things like mount and mount.cifs, probably
something like x.y where x is a command and y is some additional
features or something related to the command.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
