Linux Server Woes
Well, the whole thread disappeared - rather like my network when I tried again connecting the Linux box to it via Samba.
Anyway, in response to the question "What does IFCONFIG show", the answer was:
[root@localhost keith]# ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:A7:06:93:EE
inet addr:192.168.8.3 Bcast:192.168.8.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:2337 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:1531 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
RX bytes:340324 (332.3 Kb) TX bytes:167162 (163.2 Kb)
Interrupt:11 Base address:0x9000
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:275 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:275 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
RX bytes:26664 (26.0 Kb) TX bytes:26664 (26.0 Kb)
Anyway, following the advice given on the now-vanished thread, I edited smb.conf to show the network name as KEITH rather than MDKGROUP, and restarted the Linux box. It logged onto the network, and threw off the three machines that were connected there. They couldn't see each other or it. I had to reconfigure the network with a different name and set up the main server and the two client machines again. Not gonna do that again. Linux as a server seems more trouble than it's worth.
Looking at the router, I see that the linux box has changed its name from the LINUXBOX I gave it when I set it up, to the name of the primary Windows machine on the network. 192.168.8.2 and .3 both have the same name, and .3 is cheating.
Is Linux really this problematic, or am I dumb? I was hoping to get away from Microsoft's buggy and virus-prone stuff and support "open source", but after three evenings of tearing hair out, and trying to master long strings of mumbo-jumbo I think I prefer the GUIs of Windows XP Pro and 2000.
Is the problem that the linux machine isn't showing up in the network browser from a M$ workstation ?
Or are you trying to install your linux machine as a windows domain controler ?
read this in referance to the lost post.
No, I was trying to set up my Linux machine as a fileserver for the other three (Windows) machines on the network. The Linux machine had no problem seeing the network and the files on the machines on it - but the Windows machines couldn't write files onto the Linux machine, which was the purpose of the exercise.
The Linux machine had set itself up with a different network name ("MDKGROUP") although it would happily access the machines on the other network. It was suggested that I edit smb.conf to change that to the Windows network name.
When I eventually found out how to get past all the security to edit smb.conf, and did so, rebooting the Linux machine resulted in it signing onto the Windows network, and throwing off all the Windows machines that were there. It would not allow any of them to connect again.
I had to create a new Windows network and connect the Windows machines to that, to get the "main" network going again. The idea of using Linux as the operating system for the "fileserver" and as a way for me to get used to using Linux has been abandoned now. I'm very attracted by the idea of "open source" software, but three long evenings of trying, and then losing the network for a while, has put me right off it. I can't afford that sort of misbehaviour from an operating system.
The box (P200MMX with 128MB of RAM and about 10GB of hard drive, so not a rocket by any means, I grant you) was appallingly slow running Linux. Clicking on "Mozilla" (the Linux version) it took six minutes before the Mozilla screen appeared. Other software was similarly slow. The same machine under Windows 2000 was reasonable (about ten seconds for Mozilla to load).
All this and more was on the previous thread - which disappeared. Sounds like the Forum is using the same version of Linux as me :(
Well, none of those links were any use, and I abandoned Mandrake and Linux for six months.
Then I tried Suse - it didn't throw the other machines off the network like Mandrake, but I didn't tell it the name of the Windows network either, just to be safe. It also would not let Windows machines access it.
That also was thrown out.
Then I tried Knoppix, for which there seems to be a better supply of non-geekspeek help. On the Knoppix forum, I was told why the other machines can't access the Linux one: it's because smb.conf is put in a protected folder with root privileges only. Since the Windows machines don't have root access, they can't access the machine. Simple, really.
I copied smb.conf to the home folder, made it "anyone can read and write it", and the Linux box now allows Windows machines to access it. Job done, fileserver with Linux operational.
So how does ANYONE use Linux as a fileserver on a Windows network, unless they know to move smb.conf to the home folder and set up a batch file to switch Samba to use that version? Or does nobody use Linux as a network server?
I wonder why, in 2005, we still have to talk to computers in "terminal code" like I user to use in the early 1970s when I first did this stuff. I threw away my IBM JCL books 15 years ago I mean, "grep sudo grun -a -b -c /fred/nerk/foo.bar" isn't exactly intuitive, is it? As for installing software, well! "/.configure /what/the.heck/does/this-do" is so 1970s. How does anyone remember all this stuff without a pile of books by the computer?
Knoppix has Kpackage which does away with all that. You pick the software you want to install, click on it, and the computer does all the /.configure stuff for you. There's the future of Linux. This one, at last, is better than Windows, even for the non-geek-speaking user. Well done, Dr Knopper.