Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
From your reply I can see that you are on the right track.
You seem to have some small annoying problem.
But look at the bright side - you set up a network, connecting 2 computer heterogeneously
I know the limits you have with that schedule (writing my final year exams in University right now)
If you now would set up a server (eg apache - a web server) on the Linux box you could view the page served on the Linux box on your Windows box in your browser ...
So I would say for the beginning no bad start considering all.
Samba is normally configured over a file not over a interface.
Is the sambafs installed?
with the samba client you are only able to browse the windows shares not offer one - for that you would need the samba server.
Hmmm it seems we would need to try to install the full samba and see where it leads us.
About the filesystem - Linux/Unix as opposed to Windows does not have drive letters
you got one filesystem tree starting at / (root) if you have any extra devices (cdrom floppy, hdd etc) you mount them in this filesystem.
if you enter the command mount it will show you all your mounted partition/devices and where they are mounted
also if you enter
you will see the different partitions, there mount point and the diskusage.
I assume you have 2 partitions 1 big one mounted as / and a smaller one (bout 180MB as SWAP - Virtual memory/Pagefile in Windows)
More "advanced" Linux users partition their harddrives into smaller partitions and mount them at different points - most common /; /boot; /var; /usr; /home ...
Here is a example of a system I'm running at the moment given by df -h
As for the whole /root thing... I understand in intellectually in concept, but it hasn't made its way into my brain intuitively yet, part of the reason I don't trust screwing around with it.
As for partitions, if I recall I've got a couple of small ones (10 Gig for potential OS's), a SWAP at 3 Gig, and then 120 Gig or so as the main thing.
I'll have to see what, if anything, of Samba is installed. (See, there's a question right there. In Windows or Mac, I'd know where to look to find that out. The GNOME GUI makes me think I would know where to look for it, but I am not convinced it is showing me everything. Assuming I want to know for sure, I'd use the command line, how do I get it to show me if this thing exists?)
A thought occurs to me from looking at a link to "similar forum posts" below. Could the firewall on my Windows machine be preventing me from seeing it?
As far as pppoe, I did download one via synaptic when we first turned the machine on at my friend's place (the guy who set the thing up for me -- he's unavailable this week or two, btw, before you ask why I don't just have him over. His girlfriend is around, but she's a hardware junkie, he handles the software. She built the thing, he put the OS on.). Thing is, while I can get to it in the same place my eth0 card is, it only offers options to configure that involve phone dialing, which doesn't seem right to me at all (it's not a dial up modem, I don't remember having to put in a phone number when I set it up before, although maybe that was automated under the software the ISP shipped with their modem?).
As for your server idea, what the hell, I've got 3 more old boxes sitting around (one's an old 300MHz model, the other's probably a 386, and the third is so old I don't even know what it is, it was in the back closet when I moved in 4 years ago). I could always try turning one of them into something.
Hi Black geeky Goth heart beats higher as I hear these words of the mass of PC sitting in your place
Well the firewall thing would have been a 75% chance on ANY Linux system except Ubuntu as they don't set up a firewall as default - claim it is thought as a desktop system, hence no server services, hence no firewall needed.
I don't know which was the last Win version you used.
Under Win98 everyuser was allowed to do anything - you could call the users Fred, God or Administrator it didn't matter.
WinNT (following it Win2k and WinXP (the Home version not so much)) had user groups granting certain rights to users.
In Win2k Administrator is more or less allowed to do damn all, install, delete and wreck havoc.
then under it were certain groups down to User - which was just allowed to use the basic programs and save it, but not to touch the system in any way.
Linux and Unix are bit relaxter
your administrator is called root (yes - *NIXer love the word) - he is GOD on your system -root does not care about file permissions, or any constraints.
So in Linux the normal approach is/was to disallow root to login directly if a user needed root rights - be it to install a package or God knows he either entered "su" making him a superuser (also called administrator) who could do most of it - or more often typed "su -" and enter the root password to become root.
In the last couple of year a program called sudo emerged which if properly configured allowed certain users to execute certain commands - ie root could grant user Fred to execute lets say mount (on some systems mount is disabled for the user) for this he would write in the sudo config that Fred was allowed to exec mount.
Or he could simply grant Fred ALL rights
then fred simply would have entered "sudo ...somecmd..." followed by his (not the root) password.
Clear so far?
Ubuntu is following a bit of a different approach to other distributions
Ubuntu says as only a normal user works on the machine and all linux machines have a root account it is a potential risk for bruteforce attacks hence we disable it completely.
The normal user can use sudo to execute the root commands or to execute a root shell.
I got to play on Ubuntu myself a bit to figure out how to do what.
Did your friend install Ubuntu on your machine? I'm just curious as I installed it on my test-system (took bout 3hrs) and to connect to both my Windows machine and my Linux Server worked fine
Just installing Ubuntu again - check in synatec if the smbclient is installed that is the package name for the samba client
I just finished setting up Ubuntu on my testsystem again - this time with a minimalistic setup
Beside the usual stuff (Gnome etc)
just start synaptic and search for "samba" in Name and Description
(as I plan to use the system as a pure fileserver) I set samba up to share 1 directory and join my already existing workgroup called zuhause (means "at home" in german) and share the directory /mp3
for that I opened the root terminal over Applications->System Tools -> Root Terminal
you can now see because of the prompt (root@test:/home/bofh #) you are root.
now comes the "tricky" bit NOTE: the $ means prompt so you enter the text that follows and to make your life simpler - if you enter parts of the name eg /e and press tab then it should be completed to /etc/ (if there do not exist any other directory starting with e in /.
So to reach /etc/init.d/samba you only need to enter /e tab ini tab sam tab and it should complete it.
Play round with this a bit so you get used to it - you will miss it later when not working on the CLI
(you should see a file called smb.conf)
This will now open a editor (simple userfriendly textbased one - standard in Ubuntu) and allow you to endit the conf file
edit this line
workgroup = MSHOME (replace MSHOME with your workgroup; ie in my case ZUHAUSE)
end nano with Ctrl+X
it will ask you if you want to safe the changes and you press either Y or N
Now that samba is configured for your workgroup (you can tweak it more but that some other day)
execute this line which will restart the samba service
Now have a look at the network with Places->Network Servers
You should either see a Icon named "Windows Network"
and a Icon for each of your PCs on the Network with its name as caption
or only the windows network.
Should only the Windows Network be present open it and in the next window you should see a icon named as your workgroup
simply follow down wards till you find what you are looking for.
Well, I was missing that extra p. (boy do I feel dumb now) Mind you, that didn't seem to actually accomplish anything. (I went through all the questions, most of which I didn't understand, and then restarted the computer. Still no connection.)
So then I dug into the back of my old instructions for the Sympatico device. It has a section for configuring the modem. (A section which seems at odds with everything else they say about how to use the modem.) So I tried punching those values in.
I am now connected with my linux box.
Don't know if there is some bad inherent in this, but for the moment we seem to be ok.
1) is to download a package (deb or rpm) and install it using the corresponding tool (apt or rpm)
2) is to use a "vendor" supplied installer like FF uses or Sun JAVA
3) is to compile the software from scratch.
Packages have the advantage that they can also check dependencies and mostly have the ability to easily uninstall - asking little if not no interaction by the user.
supplied installers are similar to packages only they are not set for a particular system setup
self compiled software has the advantage of being customizable (ie see the compile inst for apache) on the other hand dependencies (liberies mainly) need to be satisfied by hand.
Personally I use packages most of the time, except when using software where I need a feature that has not been compiled in the package or if the software does not exist as package.
Why won't my computer recognize a thumb drive in the USB port?
It can be that it recognizes the thumb drive (believe you mean USB-key)
Linux can detect most USB/Firewire storage devices - I use a Sony P72 (camera) which I can simply mount as a drive.
Most USB sticks are linked into the system as /dev/sda1 (or similar)
1) open a root console
2) plug the stick in
3) execute dmesg in the console and look for the device they are linked too
as soon as you know where it is linked you can add a line to /etc/fstab to mount it.
There are rather good tutorials on the web telling you how to do this. Should I find a *very* good one I will post it.
Why did someone bother giving me an iPOD when it is incapable of working on my machine?
Ipods can work with Linux,
i believe the iTunes equiv. is called gtkpod or so but in the mean time several have emerged.
I also read about some tries to run iTunes over Wine (a windows emulator)
Just google for ipod linux
(mine works fine with it)
Why can't I get streaming video?
I had some success with it myself, but as I mostly use Linux to work with I do not care to much for videos and so.
I would search the ubuntu faq for help or post a new thread here.
Why can't I associate files to open with the programs I want?
I know that there is some kind of tool for this, but as I haven't really used Gnome for some time I will need to have a look at it before I can give you a definite answer.
You know, the little things that make me wonder if I have a broken install of Ubuntu or if it just sucks in general.
See it as a different system, things work different and therefore you need a different approach
(If you know about programming see it as OOP vs Functional programming)
it could be that you set some small things incorrectly, it could be that the package has some sort of bug (with other components or hardware) or maybe Murphy's Laws for Computers kicked in.