walt <w41...@gmail.com> writes:
[...] >>> >>> Well, it sounds like you know more about the subject than I do, but >>> do you know about smbmount that comes as part of samba? Seems to me >>> like that's what you're asking for. >> >> I had forgotten about smbmount but that too is not the same as being >> able to cd around with cd //host/share... > > Hm. I'm wondering if you come from a Windows background and are new > to the world of *ix? I started my computer life on linux 1996.. only moved to windows for some things when editing video (I like the adobe tools... and linux just doesn't have anything remotely comparable.) I admit having a very thick skull, but I also have quite a lot of time on linux and solaris...so a little has soaked into even my thick skull. It took me quite a while to learn much about windows. And it still seems horribly awkward... especially when moving around in the file system. Its so much slower and time wasting to have to navigate by clickety clack in something like the navigation windows that open for on most applications.. I most windows applications, if you want to load a new file... the navigation starts at My Documents... a place where just about nothing I do should be kept. So you must navigate to wherever it is over and over, while working on windows. I do know a few short cuts to use but still the basic fact is that overtime a very lot of time goes into just moving around on winows. > ...... That's the only way I can make sense of the > paragraph above. Maybe because you left out most of it? >> I had forgotten about smbmount but that too is not the same as being >> able to cd around with cd //host/share >> smbmount adds another layer of complexity... and something more to >> umount or maintain in mounted state... would also add a few more >> characters to each address. > In order to cd to a file system (like smbfs) that file system must > first be 'mounted' on a mount-point e.g. /mnt/ or /shares/ or wherever > you choose to put it. That mounting can be automated and transparent > to the user, as Dirk said, but it must be done somehow before you can > cd to it. Hence my comment "smbmount adds another layer of complexity..." Hence my comment "would also add a few more characters to each address." Someone has to configure it... and manintain it thru a new install. If or when that comes up. It may not be terribly difficult... but it does need to be done. > Just like partitons like /root, /var, /tmp, /usr, /home and the rest > must be mounted before they can be used by anyone, including the OS. > This is done automatically during bootup so you don't need to do it > yourself. Same with network shares. Its done automatically only if you make that happen by some configuration. It may be worth it though... and like I said.. I'd forgotten about smbmount and really have never gotten envolved with automounting things...other than one major nfs share keep on a solaris zfs server. automounting is somewhat new in linux... it was not commonly used when I started out. > I hope I'm not misunderstanding and giving you an unneeded lecture :o) Its always a good thing to have the basics hammered into your head. You might notice that most boxing matches are won by really basic techniques like keeping that jab out there. Or slipping punches that would really do damage if you didn't know how to move with it when you can. So no harm revisiting basic stuff. Maybe you didn't notice my reference to cygwin bash on windows being able to navigate via UNC. It takes only creating shares to offer thru samba, for cygwin bash to be able to navigate them with cd //host/share. No mounting, or if there is, I didn't have to specifically configure it. Smb is native to windows... so maybe that is the reason.
