1. [OT] Linux versus floppy
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:59:31 -0400, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
I've put [OT] is the subject header where it belongs 
>I don't exactly know what supermount is supposed to do, but I=20
>can tell you that it doesn't work for me.=20
on your system it may be automount or just auto ?
Pete
2. Re: [OT] Linux versus floppy
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:20:44PM +0100, Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:59:31 -0400, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
>
> I've put [OT] is the subject header where it belongs
>
> >I don't exactly know what supermount is supposed to do, but I
> >can tell you that it doesn't work for me.
> on your system it may be automount or just auto ?
>
> Pete
>
Not sure what is meant by 'auto'.
I believe supermount is a setuid program that enabled certain users to mount/
umount certain devices (such as /dev/cdrom or /dev/fd0). The idea was to enable
users to be able to mount cd-roms and such w/o needing to bother the sysadmin.
(This is obsoleted by the 'users' flag in fstab, which basicly allows
plain mount/umount to do the same thing.)
I've never used supermount, I use automount on a daily basis however.
automount is in 2 parts: a daemon and a filesystem. The file system can either
be a kernel fs (in which case the type of the fs is 'automount(pid)' where
'pid' is the pid of the daemon) or a modifed NFS server (in which case the
type of the fs is 'nfs'). Normally you'd use the kernel fs, but thats a minor
technical detail.
What you do, is mount the automount fs on a directory, say '/misc' ... then,
when you try to access, say, '/misc/cdrom', the automount fs sends a message to
the daemon. The automount daemon (which runs as root) mounts the preconfigured
device onto /misc/cdrom. After a preconfigured amount of time has passed with
no accesses to /misc/cdrom, the automount daemon will unmount it. This is all
done transparently (and is not dependant on the user who first tries to access
'/misc/cdrom' having root permissions for the mount to occur).
Of course, the above basicly has nothing to do with the original question
being asked... if this were a Linux mailing list I'd ask for more details
(such as if there was a kernel OOPS, if so to show a copy of it, what happens
when you try to write to the floppy in the linux console as opposed to in the
X session, what the output of 'cp /dev/fd0 /tmp/fd0;file /tmp/fd0' is,
and what is your kernel version and what drivers do you have compiled in)
but since this is for Euphoria, I'll just hold my breath. ;]
jbrown
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME |
3. Re: [OT] Linux versus floppy
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:36:13 -0400, <jbrown105 at speedymail.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:20:44PM +0100, Pete Lomax wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:59:31 -0400, irvm at ellijay.com wrote:
>>
>> I've put [OT] is the subject header where it belongs
>>
>> >I don't exactly know what supermount is supposed to do, but I >can tell
>> you that it doesn't work for me. on your system it may be automount or
>> just auto ?
>>
>> Pete
>>
>
> Not sure what is meant by 'auto'.
>
> I believe supermount is a setuid program that enabled certain users to
> mount/
> umount certain devices (such as /dev/cdrom or /dev/fd0). The idea was to
> enable
> users to be able to mount cd-roms and such w/o needing to bother the
> sysadmin.
> (This is obsoleted by the 'users' flag in fstab, which basicly allows
> plain mount/umount to do the same thing.)
>
> I've never used supermount, I use automount on a daily basis however.
>
> automount is in 2 parts: a daemon and a filesystem. The file system can
> either
> be a kernel fs (in which case the type of the fs is 'automount(pid)'
> where
> 'pid' is the pid of the daemon) or a modifed NFS server (in which case
> the
> type of the fs is 'nfs'). Normally you'd use the kernel fs, but thats a
> minor
> technical detail.
>
> What you do, is mount the automount fs on a directory, say '/misc' ...
> then,
> when you try to access, say, '/misc/cdrom', the automount fs sends a
> message to
> the daemon. The automount daemon (which runs as root) mounts the
> preconfigured
> device onto /misc/cdrom. After a preconfigured amount of time has passed
> with
> no accesses to /misc/cdrom, the automount daemon will unmount it. This is
> all
> done transparently (and is not dependant on the user who first tries to
> access
> '/misc/cdrom' having root permissions for the mount to occur).
>
> Of course, the above basicly has nothing to do with the original question
> being asked... if this were a Linux mailing list I'd ask for more details
> (such as if there was a kernel OOPS, if so to show a copy of it, what
> happens
> when you try to write to the floppy in the linux console as opposed to in
> the
> X session, what the output of 'cp /dev/fd0 /tmp/fd0;file /tmp/fd0' is,
> and what is your kernel version and what drivers do you have compiled in)
> but since this is for Euphoria, I'll just hold my breath. ;]
>
The discussion has not advanced the idea that Linux is simple to use. It
makes Windows seem like a dream come true
--
cheers,
Derek Parnell
4. Re: [OT] Linux versus floppy
Derek wrote:
> The discussion has not advanced the idea that Linux is simple=20
> to use. It makes Windows seem like a dream come true
=46rom the user's perspective, supermount operates transparently, and hides=
all=20
the mount/unmounting stuff - the device is simply available on demand. It's=
a=20
great feature.
That is, assuming that it's working correctly. 
=2D- David Cuny
5. Re: [OT] Linux versus floppy
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 12:16:28PM +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:36:13 -0400, <jbrown105 at speedymail.org> wrote:
<snip of my (and others) text>
>
> The discussion has not advanced the idea that Linux is simple to use. It
> makes Windows seem like a dream come true
LOL.
If you meant my explanation of supermount and automount, I have this to say:
If configured right by a sysadmin, Linux can be made easy to use by a company
employee ... but the sysadmin's job will never be easy.
I described the process of how automount works. Once configured, it works
transparently. To put it simply, once automount has been set up, I can just
type 'cp /misc/floppy/file.dat /home/jbrown' to copy a file, w/o having to mount
the floppy to copy it. (Hence the term: automount.) The detail can be blissfully
hidden from the user, if need be (and as is required in Windows). I just chose
not to hide them. ;]
If you meant Jerry's difficulties of using his floppy, then I have this to say:
You're right. Linux isn't as always as easy to use as Windows. (The only
counterargument I have for this is that this exposed complexity makes it easier
for an experienced sysadmin to fix the system when things break. If Jerry
were unable to use his floppy in a Windows system, what would you recommend
he do to fix it?)
BTW: A recommended hack for accessing DOS floppies in Linux is to use mtools,
which does so by accessing the raw device (/dev/fd0) and manually looking at
the FAT and manipulating the fs at a low level, rather than going through
the kernel drivers.
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> Derek Parnell
>
jbrown
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME |
6. Re: [OT] Linux versus floppy
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:56:30 -0400, jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
<snip>
>To put it simply, once automount has been set up, I can just
>type 'cp /misc/floppy/file.dat /home/jbrown' to copy a file, w/o having =
to mount
LOL, that'll win you no winders fans! Drag 'n drop in Konqueror (or
whatever Linux equiv of Explorer) would get the point across better ;)
<snip>
>counterargument I have for this is that this exposed complexity makes it=
easier
>for an experienced sysadmin to fix the system when things break. If =
Jerry
>were unable to use his floppy in a Windows system, what would you =
recommend
>he do to fix it?)
Very true
Unfortunately, h/w manufacturers will pester M$ with several million $
to get their kit supported under winders, but even now be reluctant to
ship a freebie to eg suse/red hat/mandrake &/or the documentation.
If whatever hardware you currently have is not supported, tough.
Sad, but true. I have crud kit linux won't install on 
(
I suppose the plus side is that only decent kit ever gets supported
under linux )
But if you do have kit which happens to be supported, there really is
no reason. I found an interesting link the other day:
http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/
Pete
