SMBMOUNT?-Solved
 

--- James Gray <james.gray@dot.com.au> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:07:29 pm Leonard Chatagnier
> wrote:
>
> > Well thanks Nick. Oh, dumb is me. Thought that
> /mnt
> > was just a command and /media/samba was the dir.
> It
> > worked afer creating the dir /mnt/media/samba.
> Thanks
> > for leading the blind and dumb.
>
> Just for clarification; there's nothing magical
> about moint-points. They are
> simply empty directories where you wish to include a
> filesystem in the
> directory tree. As all trees have roots (in our
> case '/') that is the
> highest level you can mount a filesystem (given the
> special name of 'root
> filesystem'...duh :P)
>
> The root file system my be the only filesystem or it
> could just be a basic
> boot-strap with mount-points for many other file
> systems. Confused yet?
> Either way, this whole "there are no drive letters,
> only a tree" is one of
> the harder things for people transitioning from
> "other" operating systems to
> get their head around. :) Once you nail this, a lot
> of things start to make
> more sense - espeically the "why" things are done a
> particular way, not just
> the "how".
>
> Cheers,
>
> James
>
Oh boy, ha, ha. Not any more confused than normal.
Don't use the mount cmd much and seem to forget the
syntax whenever I do it again. I created the dir
/media/samba just for the output and would have worked
if I left the/mnt off. I got what I wanted but the
hard way.
Actually, I just wanted to know what the syntax for
the {server} is in the smbmount command but still
don't know it.
F
FYI, I'm on a gutsy 64 bit machine on which I can't
see my 32 bit gutsy via naulilus but can see this one
and even copy to it from the 32 bit machine. AFAIK,
both were set up the same way; same smb.conf, etc. The
mount cmd did collect the 32bit machine data; but
can't get naulilus to pick it up. Any, thoughts on
what may be wrong? Probably, I should post separately
on this.
I became confused just about through the first
paragraph. But, thanks for trying'



Leonard Chatagnier
lenc5570@sbcglobal.net

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

SMBMOUNT?-Solved
 

Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
> --- Nick Stinemates <nick@stinemates.org> wrote:
> Snip
>
>
>>>> Take a look at smbfs.
>>>>
>>>> I use it in the following fashion:
>>>> mount -t smbfs -o
>>>> username=<user>,password=<pass>
>>>>
>> //10.0.0.23/<samba
>>
>>>> mount point> /mnt/<local mount point>
>>>>
>>>> Good luck
>>>> Nick Stinemates
>>>>
I went looking for smbfs in info mount and found it. But it says
there that the current mount does not support smbsf. So I wonder how you
discovered that this works? It talked to mount version 2.12 as not
working. I see we have version 2.13 on my Ubuntu so perhaps that is why
it works.

It starts out like the usual manual mount call but then it uses -o
to let you include name and password and then the "//10.0.0.23/<samba
mount point>" I have no idea where you found that :-)

Maybe under NFS mounting?

Karl

--

Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
Linux User
#450462 http://counter.li.org.
PGP 4208 4D6E 595F 22B9 FF1C ECB6 4A3C 2C54 FE23 53A7


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users