FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-25-2011, 01:45 AM
"Kevin J. Cummings"
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/24/2011 06:57 PM, JD wrote:
> I have been trying to mount on fedora a shared C drive
> from a windows machine running winxp.
>
> Well, I used the mount command:
>
> # mount -t cifs //xp1/c -o
> user=jd,password=mypassword,uid=myuid,gid=mygid,rw /mnt/xp1/c
>
> Unable to find suitable address.

Does "xp1" have an IP address?

If yes, does Fedora know about it?

> I checked the firewall setting on the xp machine and it
> allows pings, and printer and file sharing.
> C drive is shared as resource name C.
>
> There is also a win7 machine on the LAN.
>
> I can ping win7 and win7 can ping fedora.
> But neither fedora not win7 can ping xp1.
> I was hoping that someone has encountered
> this problem and solved it.

Can the XP machine successfully ping either win7 or fedora?

I'd start by comparing IP addresses on all three machines and checking
to see that they all think they are on the "same" network.

Second I'd check the routing tables on all 3 machines to ensure that
they are all consistent.

Can all 3 machines get to the internet (though what I am guessing is a
common router)?

--
Kevin J. Cummings
kjchome@verizon.net
cummings@kjchome.homeip.net
cummings@kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org)
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-25-2011, 02:19 AM
JD
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/24/11 18:45, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> On 05/24/2011 06:57 PM, JD wrote:
>> I have been trying to mount on fedora a shared C drive
>> from a windows machine running winxp.
>>
>> Well, I used the mount command:
>>
>> # mount -t cifs //xp1/c -o
>> user=jd,password=mypassword,uid=myuid,gid=mygid,rw /mnt/xp1/c
>>
>> Unable to find suitable address.
> Does "xp1" have an IP address?
>
> If yes, does Fedora know about it?
xp1 and win7 are both listed in /etc/hosts.
So yes, they have IP addresses
> Can the XP machine successfully ping either win7 or fedora?
XP1 can ping win7 and can ping router, but cannot ping fedora.
win7 cannot ping either win7 or fedora. It's firewall rules
fully allow icmp in private+public+domain mode.

Fedora has these rules pertaining to the LAN:

-A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 0 -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 0/0 -m state --state
ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 137 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 137 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 138 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 138 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT

-A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT
-A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

Perhaps the 2nd output rule is redundant, but I had to make sure that
ping were not blocked in or out.

>
> I'd start by comparing IP addresses on all three machines and checking
> to see that they all think they are on the "same" network.
Checked. IP addresses are all in sync.
>
> Second I'd check the routing tables on all 3 machines to ensure that
> they are all consistent.
Win7 routing table:
IPv4 Route Table
================================================== =========================
Active Routes:
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.1 276
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
================================================== =========================
Persistent Routes:
Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 Default


xp1 routing table:
================================================== =========================^M
================================================== =========================^M
Active Routes:
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254
192.168.1.3 25
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.3
192.168.1.3 25
192.168.1.3 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1
127.0.0.1 25
192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3
192.168.1.3 25
224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.1.3
192.168.1.3 25^M
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 3 1
Default Gateway: 192.168.1.254
================================================== =========================^M


Fedora routing table:
netstat -nr
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
Iface
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
wlan0
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0
wlan0
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
wlan0
> Can all 3 machines get to the internet (though what I am guessing is a
> common router)
All 3 machines can indeed use the public net via same router.




--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-25-2011, 05:07 AM
"Kevin J. Cummings"
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/24/2011 10:19 PM, JD wrote:
> On 05/24/11 18:45, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
>> Does "xp1" have an IP address?
>>
>> If yes, does Fedora know about it?
> xp1 and win7 are both listed in /etc/hosts.
> So yes, they have IP addresses

You didn't explicitly list them. Can I assume that they are:

win7 192.168.1.1
fedora 192.168.1.2
xp1 192.168.1.3
router 192.168.1.254

?

Are these all DCHP assigned from the router? or static?
If dynamic, the router will also probably help set up your routing
tables as well.... (and possibly your DNS stuff as well....)

>> Can the XP machine successfully ping either win7 or fedora?
> XP1 can ping win7 and can ping router, but cannot ping fedora.

Strange! Could be firewall related....

> win7 cannot ping either win7 or fedora. It's firewall rules

??? xp1 can ping win7, but win7 cannot ping win7???
And win7 cannot ping fedora? I must confess, I don't know that much
about win7, but that seems strange.

> fully allow icmp in private+public+domain mode.

Does traceroute tell you anything about the network routing?

(BTW, Microsoft spells traceroute: tracert)

Usually, if you have the proper routing, it will tell you how it
connects. My laptop connects to every machine on my LAN directly (only
1 hop), even though the laptop is connected to the router with the wlan,
and the other machines directly with the wired network.
And my network is particularly convoluted:

ISP <-> ISP wireless-router <-> linksys wireless router (2 linux servers
wired directly, third cable goes to a 4 port switch, one of which goes
to my son's XP, another goes to another switch with 2 more XP machines
and an HP printer on it). All of my linksys-wireless and the wired
connections use the same 192.168.6 network.

Microsoft has a tendency for each new OS to try and supersede the
previous wrt Microsoft networking control (netbios stuff).

> Fedora has these rules pertaining to the LAN:
>
> -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 0 -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 0/0 -m state --state
> ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 137 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 137 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 138 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 138 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp -m udp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT

631 is the CUPS printing stuff. The rest of those are Microsoft only
services. Maybe Samba (smbd/nmbd) will make use of them.
Are you running samba on your fedora machine?

> -A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT
> -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 -m state --state
> NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
>
> Perhaps the 2nd output rule is redundant, but I had to make sure that
> ping were not blocked in or out.

If you can ping the router without them, you don't need them.

>> I'd start by comparing IP addresses on all three machines and checking
>> to see that they all think they are on the "same" network.
> Checked. IP addresses are all in sync.

OK.

>> Second I'd check the routing tables on all 3 machines to ensure that
>> they are all consistent.
> Win7 routing table:
> IPv4 Route Table
> ================================================== =========================
> Active Routes:
> Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric
> 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.1 276
> 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
> 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
> 127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
> 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
> 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
> 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
> 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
> 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
> 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306
> 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.1 276
> ================================================== =========================
> Persistent Routes:
> Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric
> 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 Default
>
>
> xp1 routing table:
> ================================================== =========================^M
> ================================================== =========================^M
> Active Routes:
> Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric
> 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254
> 192.168.1.3 25
> 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
> 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.3
> 192.168.1.3 25
> 192.168.1.3 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1
> 127.0.0.1 25
> 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3
> 192.168.1.3 25
> 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.1.3
> 192.168.1.3 25^M
> 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 192.168.1.3 1
> 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3 3 1
> Default Gateway: 192.168.1.254
> ================================================== =========================^M
>
>
> Fedora routing table:
> netstat -nr
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
> Iface
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
> wlan0
> 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0
> wlan0
> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
> wlan0

wlan0??? You didn't mention this before (but its the same as I am using
from my laptop). I have 3 XP machines on my home network, and I have no
problems pinging them (though they don't seem to respond to traceroute!)
Either way, and I have 2 linux servers (wired) that the XP machines can
ping as well as my laptop.

>> Can all 3 machines get to the internet (though what I am guessing is a
>> common router)
> All 3 machines can indeed use the public net via same router.

Have you tried the ping tests after turning off your fedora firewall
(iptables)? Are they any better or do they still fail?
What about turning off your XP firewall, just to test the pinging?

--
Kevin J. Cummings
kjchome@verizon.net
cummings@kjchome.homeip.net
cummings@kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org)
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-25-2011, 06:39 AM
JD
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/24/11 22:07, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
>
> You didn't explicitly list them. Can I assume that they are:
>
> win7 192.168.1.1
> fedora 192.168.1.2
> xp1 192.168.1.3
> router 192.168.1.254
fedora 192.168.1.108
> ?
>
> Are these all DCHP assigned from the router? or static?
> If dynamic, the router will also probably help set up your routing
> tables as well.... (and possibly your DNS stuff as well....)
Static
>> XP1 can ping win7 and can ping router, but cannot ping fedora.
> Strange! Could be firewall related....
It must be. But I have no idea what is preventing another
LAN host to ping fedora.
>> win7 cannot ping either win7 or fedora. It's firewall rules
> ??? xp1 can ping win7, but win7 cannot ping win7???
> And win7 cannot ping fedora? I must confess, I don't know that much
> about win7, but that seems strange.
Na... My crapping typing ... sometimes my fingers get ahead of my
thoughts
win7 cannot ping either xp1 or fedora - that's what I meant to say.

> Does traceroute tell you anything about the network routing?
>
> (BTW, Microsoft spells traceroute: tracert)
Will have to try tracert tomorrow on win7. But on fedora:

$ traceroute xp1
traceroute to xp1 (192.168.1.3), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.1.108 (192.168.1.108) 3006.508 ms !H 3006.495 ms !H
3006.478 ms !H
And yet, I cannot ping it!!

$ traceroute win7
traceroute to win7 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 * * *
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 * * *
6 * * *
7 * * *
8 * * *
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *

What's this??? xp1 and win7 are on the same lan,
and I can ping win7 now. It is actually responding.
How come xp1, which fedora cannot ping is reached by traceroute,
and win7, which fedora can ping, is not reacheable by traceroute.
Could be that traceroute uses a protocol that win7 is blocking
and xp1 is not?

> 631 is the CUPS printing stuff. The rest of those are Microsoft only
> services. Maybe Samba (smbd/nmbd) will make use of them.
> Are you running samba on your fedora machine?
Yes
>> -A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT
>> -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 -m state --state
>> NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
>>
>> Perhaps the 2nd output rule is redundant, but I had to make sure that
>> ping were not blocked in or out.
> If you can ping the router without them, you don't need them.
OK. Thanx. I will remove them, because I could ping the router without
them.wlan0??? You didn't mention this before (but its the same as I am using
> from my laptop). I have 3 XP machines on my home network, and I have no
> problems pinging them (though they don't seem to respond to traceroute!)
> Either way, and I have 2 linux servers (wired) that the XP machines can
> ping as well as my laptop.
Sorry! did not think of it.
> Have you tried the ping tests after turning off your fedora firewall
> (iptables)?
Indeed I have. Neither machine can ping fedora.
Router can ping fedora and vice versa with or without
iptables turned on. Router can also ping xp1 and win7.

> Are they any better or do they still fail?
They (xp1 and win7) fail to ping fedora.
> What about turning off your XP firewall, just to test the pinging?
Will try that in the morning.

Thanx Kevin for looking into this.
I am starting to think that the router must be taking an active role in
this,
but I just cannot see any settings that would betray this.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-25-2011, 08:50 PM
JD
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/24/11 22:07, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> Have you tried the ping tests after turning off your fedora firewall
> (iptables)? Are they any better or do they still fail?
> What about turning off your XP firewall, just to test the pinging?
>
I finally zeroed in on the culprit.
It is neither fedora, nor windows xp nor windows 7.
It is the router from at&t.

I repeated the following process:

power cycle the router
wait until the network is re-established on all clients.
then
ping
from to works?
-----------------------------
xp1 fedora yes
fedora xp1 yes

xp1 win7 yes
win7 xp1 yes

win7 fedora yes
fedora win7 yes


Then I waited about 20 to 30 minutes

ping
from to works?
-----------------------------
xp1 fedora no
fedora xp1 no

xp1 win7 yes
win7 xp1 no

win7 fedora no
fedora win7 no

I can reproduce this behaviour every time
I power cycle the router.

It goes without saying that 30 minutes after resetting the router,
neither xp1 nor win7 can access the samba exported printer on fedora,
nor can fedora access the shares exported by win7 and xp1.

I had called at&t - explained the problem.
They sent a cable installer who knew nothing
about administering the router, and he was candid
enough to admit it.

My only conclusion is that someone at at&t or
a nearby is/are hacking our router, or the router's
firmware is buggy.
But I have never seen a bug like this that waits
20 to 30 minutes before striking










--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-26-2011, 01:46 AM
Tim
 
Default Mounting cifs

On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 13:50 -0700, JD wrote:
> My only conclusion is that someone at at&t or
> a nearby is/are hacking our router, or the router's
> firmware is buggy.
> But I have never seen a bug like this that waits
> 20 to 30 minutes before striking

Or it's failing... Does it, or its power supply, get hot? Does
improving its ventilation change behaviour?

I've had two modem routers go bad, I suspect they've been zapped up the
phone line during thunderstorms.

I like to take modem/routers out of my networking. Everything in my LAN
connects to a switch, and that has one ethernet cable leading to the
modem router. It (modem/router) can fail, or be left switched off, and
the LAN works fine. Also, if I have to change the modem/router, nothing
else needs reconfiguring.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-26-2011, 03:11 AM
JD
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/25/11 18:46, Tim wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 13:50 -0700, JD wrote:
>> My only conclusion is that someone at at&t or
>> a nearby is/are hacking our router, or the router's
>> firmware is buggy.
>> But I have never seen a bug like this that waits
>> 20 to 30 minutes before striking
> Or it's failing... Does it, or its power supply, get hot? Does
> improving its ventilation change behaviour?
>
Well, it is in a well ventilated spot on the table, it stands
upright, and has perforated grill on both sides. It hardly
ever gets warm to the touch, even on days when the temp
is in the 90's. Where it is located, a strong ceiling fan keeps
the air well circulated. So, I realy do not think that it is
getting too hot.
> I've had two modem routers go bad, I suspect they've been zapped up the
> phone line during thunderstorms.
This thing connects to the coax cable in the wall. The at&t
uverse system is on fiber-optic cable until it gets to the curb
by the development. From there it is on buried coax to homes.
> I like to take modem/routers out of my networking. Everything in my LAN
> connects to a switch, and that has one ethernet cable leading to the
> modem router.
If our house were wired for cat5 or cat6 in every room,
I would agree. Since that is not the case, 2 machines have
to be wireless, except for win7, which is a desktop and on
that desk is the router.


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-26-2011, 03:22 AM
Joe Zeff
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/25/2011 08:11 PM, JD wrote:
> If our house were wired for cat5 or cat6 in every room,
> I would agree. Since that is not the case, 2 machines have
> to be wireless, except for win7, which is a desktop and on
> that desk is the router.

It's not exactly hard to run the cable along the walls, stapling it to
the baseboards. And, if you know how, it's easy to lift a small section
of carpet in doorways, lay the cable and put the carpet back in place
over it. That's not to say you can't use wireless if you prefer, just
that you don't have to if you don't want to.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-26-2011, 03:37 AM
JD
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/25/11 20:22, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 08:11 PM, JD wrote:
>> If our house were wired for cat5 or cat6 in every room,
>> I would agree. Since that is not the case, 2 machines have
>> to be wireless, except for win7, which is a desktop and on
>> that desk is the router.
> It's not exactly hard to run the cable along the walls, stapling it to
> the baseboards. And, if you know how, it's easy to lift a small section
> of carpet in doorways, lay the cable and put the carpet back in place
> over it. That's not to say you can't use wireless if you prefer, just
> that you don't have to if you don't want to.
I wish I could do that - but the owner is not I

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 05-26-2011, 04:09 AM
Joe Zeff
 
Default Mounting cifs

On 05/25/2011 08:37 PM, JD wrote:
> I wish I could do that - but the owner is not I

Understood. Please note that I didn't suggest drilling any holes or
anything like that. My sister and I share a house; I'd like to do some
drilling to shorten cable-runs but the house is in her name and she
doesn't like the idea. That's why I suggested running it along the
wall. (If you have enough furniture in the right place, you don't even
need staples.)
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:39 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org