«

It's a pretty sad testament to the Linux community to see all the hate and
venum vented on that poor poster. Are Linux users so insecure with their
own selves that they can't understand that not everyone is an expert and
that people sometimes get frustrated? It really makes me ashamed to say I
am a Linux user because personally I have no desire to be included with
the likes of people like those who attacked that poster.

Much of what he says is true and is evidenced by the number of Samba
questions asked in this group over and over again. Something is surely
wrong if the same topic comes up all the time. Did anyone bother to ask if
he was running a stock install where Samba was broken? If he hasn't
updated it may never work for him and it may not be his fault. Personally
I would tell him to stay with Suse 9.0 because 9.1 is far to buggy Well
that's my say on it, flame away but I could care less as I prefer to help
people instead of attacking them.

Kevin Pederson

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:48:00 -0400, Kevin Pederson wrote:

> updated it may never work for him and it may not be his fault. Personally
> I would tell him to stay with Suse 9.0 because 9.1 is far to buggy Well
> that's my say on it, flame away but I could care less as I prefer to help
> people instead of attacking them.

Then why did you not help that whining luser?

In alt.os.linux, Kevin Pederson uttered these immortal words:

> It's a pretty sad testament to the Linux community to see all the hate and
> venum vented on that poor poster. Are Linux users so insecure with their
> own selves that they can't understand that not everyone is an expert and
> that people sometimes get frustrated? It really makes me ashamed to say I
> am a Linux user because personally I have no desire to be included with
> the likes of people like those who attacked that poster.

I kept clear of that thread but I think I can understand why some people
were less than friendly. The poster started with:

<quote>
Why is simple P2P networking such a mess with Linux?
Microsoft and Windows seem to be able to sort this out and make it work in
a simple, reasonable manner that doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
out so why can't Linux do the same?
</quote>

Does that sound like something a troll might say? It did to me so I skipped
to the next thread. Given that some others might've read that as trolling
I'm not surprised that those people responded the way they did.

> Much of what he says is true and is evidenced by the number of Samba
> questions asked in this group over and over again. Something is surely
> wrong if the same topic comes up all the time. Did anyone bother to ask if
> he was running a stock install where Samba was broken? If he hasn't
> updated it may never work for him and it may not be his fault. Personally
> I would tell him to stay with Suse 9.0 because 9.1 is far to buggy Well
> that's my say on it, flame away but I could care less as I prefer to help
> people instead of attacking them.

I think there are far too many people coming to Linux from Windows who want
to run before they can walk. Some people with network or network service
related problems freely admit that they know nothing about networks or the
service they're trying to run.

Things may work in the Windows world by starting a service and just fumbling
around a few dialog boxes but the Linux equivalents generally require a
higher level of knowledge and an ability to read and understand the many
docs that exist among other skills.

I think the bottom line is if Linux is particularly hard for someone to
learn then they need to ask themselves whether it's right for them for what
they want to do. It won't be right for everyone just as Windows isn't right
for a lot of us.

I'm sure some people want to come to Linux because they think they're going
to get something for nothing. They're wrong. It'll cost them time to learn
the new skills they'll need. Some people don't seem to want to invest that
time.

IMHO of course.

--
Andy.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:48:00 -0400, Kevin Pederson wrote:

> It's a pretty sad testament to the Linux community to see all the hate and
> venum vented on that poor poster.

"Poor poster"? He came in here bitching and basically saying "it's all
Linux's fault!" He got exactly what he was looking for.

> I would tell him to stay with Suse 9.0 because 9.1 is far to buggy Well
> that's my say on it, flame away but I could care less as I prefer to help
> people instead of attacking them.

So why didn't you help him?

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

"Kevin Pederson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)

> It's a pretty sad testament to the Linux community to see all the
> hate and venum vented on that poor poster.

It's a"pretty sad testament" that you can't include the pertinent quoted
text so that people have some idea of what you're even talking about.

--
use hotmail for email replies

Kevin Pederson scratched out in the sand


> am a Linux user because personally I have no desire to be included with
> the likes of people like those who attacked that poster.

Then why are you posting this flamebait article?

--
kai - kai at 3gproductions dot com
www.gamephreakz.com || www.filesite.org
"friends don't let friends use windows xp"

Kevin Pederson wrote:

> It's a pretty sad testament to the Linux community to see all the hate and
> venum vented on that poor poster. Are Linux users so insecure with their

But madam, why so much flatness? Is M$ paying you direct with
instructions now?

> own selves that they can't understand that not everyone is an expert and
> that people sometimes get frustrated? It really makes me ashamed to say I
> am a Linux user because personally I have no desire to be included with
> the likes of people like those who attacked that poster.
>
> Much of what he says is true and is evidenced by the number of Samba
> questions asked in this group over and over again. Something is surely

The issue is not GNU/Linux - the issue is that it is windopes
which mucks things up. I've got samba working perfectly in GNU/Linux
boxes, but can I get it to work fully with windopes? No. Can windopes
work? No. Not if there are firewalls and other things in the way.
The protocol which samba has to use to support the microshaft crap
is hideos in detail.

For GNU/Linux at least, there is a quick alternative.
enter the following to start the ssh server, and the second command
to make it start at boot time.

/etc/init.d/ssh start
update-rc.d ssh defaults

Now if you have KDE loaded, open conqueror and enter in the URL

fish://username@ipaddress

and voila, it asks for password, and you are logged into remote machine
with the given ipaddress, with
similar functionality to windopes samba networking with the
added bonus that the traffic is sent encrypted because fish uses ssh.
You can read and write files as per permissions set for the user.
You can change permissions by opening up a console and
entering

ssh username@ipaddress

and log into remote machines again through encrypted session.
You can then type away as if you are sitting in front of the
remote machine and do anthing you like. If you want to shut
the machine down for example, it would be

shutdown -h now

If you want to run up a vnc session, you would type

vncserver :1 -geometry 1024x768

and voila you have another session of KDE running, which
you can connect to using RDesktop in KDE by typing in
the location

ipaddress:1

and voila, you have complete graphical duplication
of remote machine.

When you have functionality like this, samba simply is not
a competitor. Its a real disadvantage having to support it
and all its problematic implementation details.


> wrong if the same topic comes up all the time. Did anyone bother to ask if
> he was running a stock install where Samba was broken? If he hasn't
> updated it may never work for him and it may not be his fault. Personally
> I would tell him to stay with Suse 9.0 because 9.1 is far to buggy Well
> that's my say on it, flame away but I could care less as I prefer to help
> people instead of attacking them.
>
> Kevin Pederson

There are totally hideos problems in windope file and printer
sharing. It may all seem to work, but when you have
specific things like firewalls to have to cross, it
becomes a total nightmare. I don't understand the
problems - it seems very basic - something along the lines
of needing but not having master in the network + caches
that keep alive ghost shares and names that have long
since been removed from the network which all makes the
task of managing the windope protocol all the more
difficult, dangerous and dodgy.

Samba is a duplication of windopery and necessarily
comes with all the mistakes made in windope file
and printer sharing. I think if you want to share files,
its far better to use ssh and fish, and drop samba.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:48:41 +0000, 7 wrote:

> Samba is a duplication of windopery and necessarily
> comes with all the mistakes made in windope file
> and printer sharing. I think if you want to share files,
> its far better to use ssh and fish, and drop samba.

On that you are quite wrong. The samba server acts just like an NT-4 file
server. One of my clients is a computer store and dialup ISP. He and his
bookkeeper have all of their active CRM and accounting files stored on
that samba server. No business critical data is saved on Windoze
machines.

If you want to see the configuration of one of my samba servers then use
Google's groups advanced search for "smb.conf", comp.unix.solaris, 25 Sept
2004 and my name.

Dave Uhring wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:48:41 +0000, 7 wrote:
>
>> Samba is a duplication of windopery and necessarily
>> comes with all the mistakes made in windope file
>> and printer sharing. I think if you want to share files,
>> its far better to use ssh and fish, and drop samba.
>
> On that you are quite wrong.

How can that be?
You left the preceeding qualifier paragraph out..

>>There are totally hideos problems in windope file and printer
>>sharing. It may all seem to work, but when you have
>>specific things like firewalls to have to cross, it
>>becomes a total nightmare. I don't understand the
>>problems - it seems very basic - something along the lines
>>of needing but not having master in the network + caches
>>that keep alive ghost shares and names that have long
>>since been removed from the network which all makes the
>>task of managing the windope protocol all the more
>>difficult, dangerous and dodgy.

In samba even in a pure GNU/Linux environment, I see
ghost machines months after removal from the network
like in windope environment.
Some of the mistakes in windope environment
is being duplicated across to reproduce the
windopey behavior. No doubt someone will one day
write a ton of code to fix it and then windopes
will copy it to do a sco.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:40:17 +0000, 7 wrote:

> Dave Uhring wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:48:41 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> Samba is a duplication of windopery and necessarily
>>> comes with all the mistakes made in windope file
>>> and printer sharing. I think if you want to share files,
>>> its far better to use ssh and fish, and drop samba.
>>
>> On that you are quite wrong.
>
> How can that be?

Linux server, Windows clients.

> You left the preceeding qualifier paragraph out..

You are discussing Windows server, Linux client. Who in his right mind
would do that?