gotta love it
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Feb 20, 2007 8:08 PM EDT |
Getting paid to spout ignorantly. Sweet. The 'author' doesn't give enough information, but I'm betting he doesn't have his windows shares set up correctly to avoid getting the login box. Poor thing. |
| dcparris Feb 20, 2007 10:39 PM EDT |
Funny that. I would have thrown out the Windows installs. No Windows, no connectivity problems. ;-) |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 2:50 AM EDT |
> but I'm betting he doesn't have his windows shares set up correctly to avoid getting the login box. Probably. The correct tiltle should be - Help, I'm too stupid to figure out how to use Samba. > Poor thing. Would the Zevon or the Ronstadt version of "Poor, poor, pitiful me" me more appropriate? |
| golem Feb 21, 2007 3:24 AM EDT |
It almost sounds like he's disappointed that so many things worked so well. |
| purplewizard Feb 21, 2007 5:10 AM EDT |
I'm a dedicated Linux user. A decade of it now. I do have an XP machine because some tools I need are Windows only. I have had exactly the experience he has had. I agree being all Linux would be great. I just fish:// to file browse between my Linux machines, not bothered with other network tools because doing that is so easy. But returning to that problem. I'm not stupid, I just don't have time to mess around with features for which I have an alternative (like a few quick scripts which invoke rsync and scp over a direct ethernet cable connection between the two). Over all I've had lots more problems with the Win XP machine, I hate using it and don't unless I have too. But the particular problem he stated is my problem too. |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 5:46 AM EDT |
> But the particular problem he stated is my problem too. If you can ping the Windows box from your Linux box, then you have a problem either with the XP filesharing configuration, your XP firewall (most likely), or your Samba configuration. If all else fails, enable an ftp server on your Linux box, set tcpwrappers to only allow your local network to connect, and put Filezilla on your Windows boxes. Ftp may not be glamorous, but it works. |
| purplewizard Feb 21, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
If all else fails, enable an ftp server on your Linux box, set tcpwrappers to only allow your local network to connect, and put Filezilla on your Windows boxes. Ftp may not be glamorous, but it works. But I think the point being made in the story was you shouldn't need to do all that. It should be as easy as fish:// in Konqurer. Zero configuration. Linux to Linux is actually easiest due to fish provided I exist on both machines. It's also ssh so I can risk it from anywhere to anywhere. Windows to Windows nearly just works too. But Linux to Windows attracts a whole load of whacky suggestions which indicates to me a lack of expectation that it will all just work. That it isn't as easy as everyone was proclaiming him and me idiots for. Simply I achieve the copying I need to but not as easily as it should be and not using the mechanisms supposedly there as the prime way to do it. With the other boot I will state I think my set up problems are with the Windows end. The Linux end seems to be the easiest to configure, but I don't know because it doesn't work. |
| tuxchick Feb 21, 2007 7:22 AM EDT |
purplewizard, it's not a Samba or Linux problem. It's a Windows problem, a very simple one to fix in fact, and no, I have no patience with alleged journalists who are too lazy to do a tiny bit of research, and who prefer to write ignorant whiny drivel. The author of this article should be ashamed. Anyone can write whiny ignorant drivel, that's no achievement. I'm not real crazy about users who are above doing a bit of research, either. |
| Libervis Feb 21, 2007 7:32 AM EDT |
This guy just has no excuse. If he's been using computers since 1972 I would think he actually has enough knowledge and inclination to do at least a bit of research and get it working. It was probably a tiny step away. Sounds to me like he has put his expectations so high he might have just hired someone else to try Ubuntu instead of him, while he sits and watch.. Sigh. |
| tuxchick Feb 21, 2007 7:42 AM EDT |
Oh yeah, the probable solution: first enable the guest account on ExPee. Then go into Control Panel - Administrative Tools - Computer Management to configure permissions on the windoze shares. Somewheres may also be a Network Wizard you can run instead. |
| bigg Feb 21, 2007 8:00 AM EDT |
I know nothing about Samba - actually don't even know what it is - but every Linux distro I've installed (including Ubuntu, Debian, PCLinuxOS, openSuse, Fedora, and probably others) has connected to Windows XP networks automatically. If you can connect with a Windows computer you should be able to connect with Ubuntu. Or maybe I'm just the one in a million guy for which everything works. |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 8:10 AM EDT |
> Or maybe I'm just the one in a million guy for which everything works. Once Samba is configured properly, it's always just worked for me. But I've never tried with an XP machine with the firewall turned on. I suspect that would break things unless you explicitly turn on file sharing in the firewall. But again, that's a Windows issue, not a Linux one. |
| purplewizard Feb 21, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
tuxchick I do plenty of research thank you. Hence I know multiple alternative ways to achieve most of what I need. In fact having taken the time to learn rsync and ssh and fish I have better solutions for most of my needs (because most of my needs are Linux to Linux). Just typing update MY_TREE on the XP machine in a Cygwin shell is much better for me than fiddling around copying every individual files I have changed. However sometimes there are out of the ordinary process items that it would be nice to just drag and drop into a share or drag from a share on the XP machine. Those instances are however sufficiently rare that I can either just e-mail it to the other machine or scp it from the Cygwin shell. Hence the time to research that task is a waste compared to just living with the no shares. So in short your "users who are too lazy to do any research" dig at me is out of order and damned insulting. And exactly the kind of attitude that whiny journalists in the world of Windows propaganda feed on. It's the kind of attitude that is basically a potent get lost to would be converts. bigg I don't know what you mean on connected to XP networks automatically. My machines share a network fine. Shares just don't work without more fuss than I've got inclination for. And yes I've spent hours on it, read pages on it. |
| bigg Feb 21, 2007 8:27 AM EDT |
Mr. Wizard: My reference was to his statement that "Vista and XP play happily together, doing all the file and printer sharing I need with absolutely no bother. The Ubuntu PC is a different matter entirely." He doesn't give a lot of details, but every time I've ever installed Linux, I plug into the router and I'm automatically connected to the Windows network, and can share files or printers without dialog boxes getting in my way. I can't think of any time I've ever had a problem. File sharing is done by copy and paste, I can open documents from my Windows machine on my Linux machine, and printing is no different whether it is a local printer or on a different computer. At least what the author is describing is something that has never been an issue for me. |
| tuxchick Feb 21, 2007 8:50 AM EDT |
pwizard, you're not a would-be convert, but someone who claims to be experienced. You said the article author's problem is also a problem for you. Yes, I think experienced users who have time to complain but not do a bit of research are wastes of time. But I posted a possible solution anyway. |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 8:53 AM EDT |
purplewizard: > So in short your "users who are too lazy to do any research" dig at me is out of order and damned insulting. I don't believe it was aimed at you, but rather at the author. Five will get you ten he never configured Samba, and that his Windows machines share the same username and password, so he never had to configure his sharing permissions. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 21, 2007 8:59 AM EDT |
jdixon, Could also be a domain name issue. But someone should remind this "author" that Ubuntu!=Linux ... He could have tried the latest version of Knoppix, for instance. Heck, there's even now a LiveCD version of Redhat. My take on the article is that it was just another bit of lame flamebait. At the bottom of the page, there's even an invitation to "Flame the Author". |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 9:06 AM EDT |
> Could also be a domain name issue. Well, that's part of the Samba configuration. :) |
| techiem2 Feb 21, 2007 9:06 AM EDT |
Ubuntu != Linux !? Shhh! don't let the ubuntuites hear you! You'll get tar and feathered! Oh wait, they're all hanging out in the Ubuntu forums. Carry on then. :) |
| DarrenR114 Feb 21, 2007 9:21 AM EDT |
Getting tarred by Ubuntuites?? Somehow I think they'd be more like to deb or apt me ... Now if we were talking about Slackers, I'd be worried about getting tarred. |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2007 9:25 AM EDT |
> Now if we were talking about Slackers, I'd be worried about getting tarred. And rightfully so. However, it's not the tarring that's painful, it's the gzipping. :) |
| tuxchick Feb 21, 2007 12:26 PM EDT |
Darren, if the problem were domain-related (or more likely workgroup), windows wouldn't even see the Samba shares, or offer up a login box when trying to connect from Ubuntu. So that's a good reminder: windoze must have the same workgroup name as all the other computers for Samba to work. Linux is smarter and doesn't care about silly things like windoze workgroups. And yes, it's lame flamebait. |
| dcparris Feb 21, 2007 1:47 PM EDT |
Yeah, I think the aritcle was flamebait. PurpleWizard, please remember our ToS and family-oriented nature when you conjure up your words. You've been around long enough to know better. Thanks! |
| swbrown Feb 21, 2007 4:05 PM EDT |
Heh, let me take a shot at writing a comparable troll/flamebait review from the other perspective.. This should be fun.. --- SAFETY IN NUMBERS as it is said, the best path to take when dealing with software as your support needs have surely already been encountered and met by your peers. At least, it sounds good on paper, but in implementation, I found use of market leading Windows software was all but safe. Years ago, Windows wasn't seen as a serious contender for the desktop - with its 16 bit architecture and unprotected memory, you would spend more time restoring your system than using it. Offices felt more like nursing homes with the staff stuck changing Windows' bedpan. However, I've been told by many card-carrying members of Bill's personal fanclub that our elder friend Windows has somehow discovered the fountain of youth, and with the release of what is called "XP", is back to a strapping young age of 22 with bulging pectorals and large breasted women hanging off each arm. Apprehensive, but fond of large breasted women, I set out to put it to the test - could hundreds of millions of users really be so wrong? The battle lines were drawn by a partition - GNU/Linux on one side, Windows XP on the other, and this civil war of electrons would be brought to you by this brave software soldier, but not sooner did XP start its march to the trenches then did I hear the cry of "MEDIC"! On inserting the Windows XP installation CD, with the parroting of "It's so much easier to install than GNU/Linux!" still ringing in my ears, I was immediately stopped dead in my tracks - XP was unable to install on SATA RAID drives! Something I've taken for granted for years on GNU/Linux now left me helpless to even initiate this conflict. Was the battle over without firing a shot? The 'software ecosystem' is a much touted feature of Windows XP, something I take is meant to sound similar to GNU/Linux's highly advanced 'community', so would they come to my aid, or prove to be just a cheap knockoff to put a bullet-point on a box? I called the manufacturer of my computer who told me this would be 'easy' to fix and that I just needed to make a driver disk. An actual floppy disk! I couldn't believe it - surely this modern OS wasn't relying on a technology that's gone the way of VHS and cassette? I asked if I couldn't just burn a new installer to a CD and be done with it, but apparently this is just the way Windows rolls - the technology of the '80's resurfaces in the same way as bell-bottoms and Volkswagens, but there was certainly no free love to be found here. Having no floppy drive in my possession (I also lack an 8-track and platform shoes, but luckily they said those would not be required), I was forced to try out available 'support'. The "Geek Squad" arrived, and explained this was beyond them and they were really only good at things like fixing desktop backgrounds. I wound up having to phone in a friend to help me through this, not exactly a stellar showing for the 'software ecosystem'. So now with XP installed I could start the meat of my review - could this OS really support my workflow as so many have insisted? The first thing I would try is seeing how it could handle multimedia. Multimedia has always been a week spot for Windows, only supporting a few non-standard formats, but surely with the growth of the internet their software has grown along with it. I browsed to my music collection, double clicked, and.. a dialog telling me the format is unrecognized? I tried again with another format, the same thing. Again and again, the silence was deafening. The fanboi would have me believe I had at my fingers a virtual philharmonic, but I was making more music with the keyboard than the machine was producing. ogg, flac, xm, it, s3m, mod, sid, one by one the formats all failed to play. Turning to my collection of video featuring large breasted women, the only moaning I heard was mine as I was blocked from even this form of superficial gratification. I asked around for support in various Windows forums, and no one even knew what I was talking about! I had to call in a friend again who explained I needed to locate and download 'codecs' to get these formats to play, and that they were scattered all over the place - some would only work in custom players, some would only work embedded in Microsoft's player. I decided I'd be better off silently meditating than dealing with the kind of frustration that comes from having to juggle multiple apps just to listen to some music. It scored an astonishing 0% on multimedia support - how can anyone use this OS as a general purpose desktop other than 'PC Guy' on the Mac ads who only wants to get office work done? Surely at least office work, the most highly touted, and parodied, feature of this platform would be a strong showing. I browsed to my Ubicomp papers and double clicked - postscript unsupported! The language of science was but mysterious scribbles on ancient cave walls to this progenitor of modern OS. I tried double-clicking their source - no LaTeX either, a similar lacking encountered with my videos. I tried again, no OpenDocument support! An international standard for office documents, completely unsupported! There's just no way you'd be using this OS for any serious work without a lot of forced evolution by that 'software ecosystem' that had already proved incapable of basic support. So now I came to my AMIA paper in DOC format, a requirement of the misguided conference - it attempted to open it, however it destroyed most of the formatting! Apparently, you can't even edit Microsoft's own format with Microsoft's own OS without buying additional tools! Why are these tools not included in the OS like OpenOffice.org in GNU/Linux? It just adds to frustration to force customers to go out and deal with the complexity of software installation just to have basic support for office documents - your average home user isn't going to know how to do that. Even I had trouble with it, and I've been working on x86 protected mode operating systems since 1991! All these problems with the OS, and I didn't even have to review the worst parts - spyware and viruses use this as some sort of petri dish, and guess who plays the role of the augur? Like Time's 2006 Man of the Year, it's you! There's just no way I can recommend this OS for desktop use. At best, it's a foot in the door for Microsoft to produce something that will eventually be usable, but for now, unless you're a geek who understands how to make driver disks out of floppies and can deal with having to install a new piece of software for every feature you want to use, it's a Lite-Brite and you're Boston. |
| ABCC Feb 21, 2007 4:07 PM EDT |
Thank you tuxchick, I actually had the same problem as the author of the otherwise worthless article on the inquirer had this afternoon. Reading your post and taking a quick look in the config file showed what was wrong. I don't know what he's complaining about though, I hadn't even gotten around to trying to solve the problem and already the linux community has provided me with a fix. Hooray! |
| helios Feb 22, 2007 1:58 AM EDT |
Purplewizard, I've had this problem but only in Ubuntu. I am thinking it is more a gnome problem than it is an ubuntu problam as when using KDE in PCLOS, Mepis, Pardus or vector it has been ready for me out of the box. I would simply open konqie, go to "GO" in the upper file menu, navigate down to Network Folders then to Samba Shares and Bingo, there were my Windows Machines. One thing however, in PCLOS "Lisa" was not activated by default so I had to do so in order to see the files. After that was done by starting the service in the pclos control center, it was all full rights access to any file on the Doze machines. I did write to the Linux Mint people about this problem as they seem keen on making Ubuntu more user friendly...The actual Ubuntu distro is way over-hyped as "new user friendly", but then again, go to Devnets blog or a choice few of my own and see what the Ubuntu Kiddies have to say about said criticisms. It aint purty. Tuxchick...do you have a link to that workaround you talk about? The Article doesn't seem to want to let me into the comments page. h |
| jdixon Feb 22, 2007 5:15 AM EDT |
> Linux is smarter and doesn't care about silly things like windoze workgroups. Well, to be fair that depends on your distribution. Slackware does absolutely no Samba configuration for you. You have to copy the sample smb.conf and edit it as needed. However, once you set your domain/workgroup in smb.conf correctly, everything seems to work properly. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 22, 2007 6:20 AM EDT |
swbrown, I suggest that you re-write that review, changing it from MS-Windows XP to MS-Windows Vista, and submit it to the world as a legit review - hopefully a mainstream rag will pick up on it. I thoroughly enjoyed (and agreed with) it. |
| dcparris Feb 22, 2007 7:05 PM EDT |
swbrown, I'll second the motion. Write it up and post it here! Since even Forbes is apparently dissing Vista, you'll be in good(?) company. |
| swbrown Feb 22, 2007 7:44 PM EDT |
> I suggest that you re-write that review, changing it from MS-Windows XP to MS-Windows Vista, I've not been personally using Vista so don't know enough about it from a user perspective to write a funny troll, although I'd like to do something like "3 CLICKS FROM DESTRUCTION" with anything that could be found to screw things up royally within a couple clicks on a fresh install. > and submit it to the world as a legit review Then I'd be as bad as the Register. :) |
| tuxchick Feb 22, 2007 7:58 PM EDT |
jdixon, workgroups are a Windows abomination. A Windows PC must be a member of a workgroup to be able to access that workgroup. Linux, on the other hand, isn't bound by such silly restrictions. You don't have to change the workgroup name on a Linux box and reboot to be able to join a different workgroup like you do with Windoze. You can create a gazillion arbitrary workgroups in Samba and your Linux PC will happily enter any that it has permissions to. Workgroups are a dopey windows convention, and Samba has to use them because Windows uses them. Linux/Unix have other, better ways to control access to resources. The next step up in windoze is Domains, which can contain multiple workgroups. Then you get into horrid things like trusts and trees and branches and primary domain controllers and secondaries, and remember that secondary domains were invented for Windows NT as necessary failovers because NT was so unreliable. And if you wanted to "demote" a primary to a secondary, you had to reinstall the entire freaking operating system just because you couldn't manually control the domain SID (security identifier). It's all so unbelievably lame I would die laughing if I weren't made of tuff stuff. |
| tracyanne Feb 23, 2007 4:37 AM EDT |
I find that setting SaMBa file shares on Linux using Konquorer doesn't work. That is I have the same issues as described in the article. I can ping the Linux box from the Windows box but can't access it. Going the other way is usually not a problem. Set up file shares on the Windows box and I can read and write them from the Linux box... no worries. On closer inspection the problem seems to be the settings that are written to the SaMBa config file from Konqueror. If I go into the Mandriva Control Panel -> Mount Points -> Manage Configuration of Samba I can make the SaMBa file shares available to the Windows box. It usually means removing most of the setting created by Konqueror. I end up with something like this [DOWNLOAD] path = /home/tracy/Download/ comment = Tracy Downloads public = yes writable = yes valid users = tracy This share is readable and writable from other machines on my network, including Windows, provided you know the SaMBa users password. |
| Abe Feb 23, 2007 10:27 AM EDT |
I feel so sorry for all of you guys & gals who still have to deal with Windows at home. Has anyone heard of FireFTP? Check it out here: http://fireftp.mozdev.org/ |
| swbrown Feb 23, 2007 5:00 PM EDT |
> Has anyone heard of FireFTP? FTP / SFTP / fish fill a different role than Samba / NFS / etc.. They're good for copying files, but not for using files as if they were local. I'll exclude WebDAV from either category, as it tends to be mostly unusable. I'd warn that SMB/CIFS is a trainwreck, but then I don't know of anything in that space that isn't a trainwreck. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 24, 2007 6:43 AM EDT |
I like WebDAV ... and Tomcat 4 made it easy to use ... though there are some third party MS-Windows applications that don't deal with it well. |
| swbrown Feb 24, 2007 3:08 PM EDT |
> though there are some third party MS-Windows applications that don't deal with it well. It's a bit like SOAP - 99% of implementations can't talk to each other except on the most basic of levels and there'll still be some problems even with that. |
| jdixon Feb 24, 2007 3:39 PM EDT |
> jdixon, workgroups are a Windows abomination... The next step up in windoze is Domains, which can contain multiple workgroups. Yeah. I'm unfortunately familar with Windows workgroups and domains since I have to deal with them at work. And don't even get me started on that Microsoft ripoff of Novell's NDS, Active Directory. > You can create a gazillion arbitrary workgroups in Samba and your Linux PC will happily enter any that it has permissions to. Since I've never had to deal with multiple workgroups, I've wan't aware Samba could do that. I'll have to check it out. |
| tracyanne Feb 24, 2007 7:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:Has anyone heard of FireFTP? I use it all the time. I use it at work too, it's especially useful when our satellite link is dropping out due to rain in the Northern Territory is interfering with the signal (we are using a satellite that is somewhere over Indonesia, and the ground station is in Port Macquarie in NSW, we're in Country Queensland, North of Brisbane). The proprietary FTP client my boss bought gives up, but FireFTP just keeps on retrying until it has uploaded or download everything. |
| Abe Feb 25, 2007 9:25 AM EDT |
Quoting:FTP / SFTP / fish fill a different role than Samba / NFS / etc.. They're good for copying files, That is why it was created in the first place. I mentioned it just for the people who just want to copy files. It is nice since all it needs is FF browser that can be handled by any newbie and the experienced, especially those who upload/download files for web development. It is quick and effective file transfer. It sure beats dealing with anything else for this purpose. |
| tracyanne Feb 25, 2007 12:23 PM EDT |
I also recommended it to one of our clients, they asked, I responded (my boss wanted them to buy a license for the FTP client he uses), they are very happy with it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!