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.