[CentOS] Mounting File Share Using CIFS ?'s

[TechGuy]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:51 PM, MHR <mhullrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM, TechGuy <techguy at gmail.com> 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 at centos.org
> 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.