Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Windows 7 Ultimate and NFS
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Chris Ahlstrom
Sep 25, 2014, 6:38:42 AM9/25/14
to
https://web.archive.org/web/20111217170801/http://www.yqed.com/nfs-setup-windows-7-freenas/
I used NFS to mount the NAS on a local network of 4 development servers.
As usual, everything worked perfectly… Linux makes your life very easy. I
needed to make available all my media files into a Windows box, so I can
play them on WMC and Xbox 360. Microsoft provides the NFS client in
Windows Enterprise and Ultimate. That determined me right away to use it,
mainly because NFS is much faster compared to CIFS when it comes to file
transfers.
Enabling the NFS client in Windows Ultimate is a matter of few clicks,
all you have to do is enable it into Windows features:
<picture>
From there, the Micrapsoft tragedy started. The first obstacle I
encountered was related to Windows permissions. Even if the NFS service
was started properly in Windows, I could not connect to the NAS. Well I
could connect but that’s it. If I wanted to create a file and edit its
content, I was not allowed.
It's a train-wreck of a story, if you can stomach it. Though it ends well
in this guy's quest for functionality:
Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount command
was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this took
me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly 30
seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick…
The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily with
a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
--
You have all eternity to be cautious in when you're dead.
-- Lois Platford
I used NFS to mount the NAS on a local network of 4 development servers.
As usual, everything worked perfectly… Linux makes your life very easy. I
needed to make available all my media files into a Windows box, so I can
play them on WMC and Xbox 360. Microsoft provides the NFS client in
Windows Enterprise and Ultimate. That determined me right away to use it,
mainly because NFS is much faster compared to CIFS when it comes to file
transfers.
Enabling the NFS client in Windows Ultimate is a matter of few clicks,
all you have to do is enable it into Windows features:
<picture>
From there, the Micrapsoft tragedy started. The first obstacle I
encountered was related to Windows permissions. Even if the NFS service
was started properly in Windows, I could not connect to the NAS. Well I
could connect but that’s it. If I wanted to create a file and edit its
content, I was not allowed.
It's a train-wreck of a story, if you can stomach it. Though it ends well
in this guy's quest for functionality:
Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount command
was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this took
me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly 30
seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick…
The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily with
a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
--
You have all eternity to be cautious in when you're dead.
-- Lois Platford
chrisv
Sep 25, 2014, 8:07:08 AM9/25/14
to
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount command
> was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
> seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this took
> me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly 30
> seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick�
>
>The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily with
>a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
"Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
> Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount command
> was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
> seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this took
> me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly 30
> seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick�
>
>The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily with
>a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
on every PC on every desk".
--
"You try to make it sound like creating the worlds largest software
company is no big deal." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying
shamelessly
Silver Slimer
Sep 25, 2014, 10:18:10 AM9/25/14
to
On 25/09/2014 8:07 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount command
>> was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
>> seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this took
>> me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly 30
>> seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick…
>>
>> The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily with
>> a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
>
> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
> on every PC on every desk".
Pray tell, why would a company operating within a capitalism like
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount command
>> was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
>> seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this took
>> me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly 30
>> seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick…
>>
>> The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily with
>> a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
>
> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
> on every PC on every desk".
Microsoft NOT want to have Microsoft software on every PC on every desk?
--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
chrisv = anus
Ezekiel
Sep 25, 2014, 10:26:54 AM9/25/14
to
"Silver Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote in message
news:m01870$hjg$3...@dont-email.me...
LOL - A "Linux guy" had problems getting NFS working on Windows.
We must be doing something wrong here at work. We most certainly use NFS for
our home (~) directories. The exact same home directory is accessible in
every OS - including Windows.
I'm not aware of a single employee that has problems accessing NFS through
Windows and many of the field consultants do it over a VPN while they're on
the road.
Perhaps they should get someone competent with networking to set this up for
them. Maybe the common "net use" or "mount" command is too difficult for
this whiner.
>>> The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily
>>> with
>>> a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
>>
>> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
>> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
>> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
>> on every PC on every desk".
>
> Pray tell, why would a company operating within a capitalism like
> Microsoft NOT want to have Microsoft software on every PC on every desk?
You're crazy. Don't you know that Google wants people to use other companies
services. IBM wants to sell other companies products. What world to you live
in?
--
(Iterating nodes in an XML document) "kind of defeats the point of XML."
JED the clueless poser
<slrnjm7bu...@nomad.mishnet>
news:m01870$hjg$3...@dont-email.me...
> On 25/09/2014 8:07 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount
>>> command
>>> was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
>>> seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this
>>> took
>>> me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly
>>> 30
>>> seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick�
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount
>>> command
>>> was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
>>> seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this
>>> took
>>> me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly
>>> 30
LOL - A "Linux guy" had problems getting NFS working on Windows.
We must be doing something wrong here at work. We most certainly use NFS for
our home (~) directories. The exact same home directory is accessible in
every OS - including Windows.
I'm not aware of a single employee that has problems accessing NFS through
Windows and many of the field consultants do it over a VPN while they're on
the road.
Perhaps they should get someone competent with networking to set this up for
them. Maybe the common "net use" or "mount" command is too difficult for
this whiner.
>>> The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily
>>> with
>>> a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
>>
>> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
>> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
>> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
>> on every PC on every desk".
>
> Pray tell, why would a company operating within a capitalism like
> Microsoft NOT want to have Microsoft software on every PC on every desk?
services. IBM wants to sell other companies products. What world to you live
in?
--
(Iterating nodes in an XML document) "kind of defeats the point of XML."
JED the clueless poser
<slrnjm7bu...@nomad.mishnet>
flatfish+++
Sep 25, 2014, 10:57:33 AM9/25/14
to
probably writing documentation.
He wishes he was a coder but he is not.
IBM sells Brocade Switches BTW.
And they will write a maintenance contract on any hardware no matter
who makes it.
Ahlstrom is lost once again.
--
flatfish+++
Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html
JEDIDIAH
Sep 25, 2014, 10:30:22 AM9/25/14
to
On 2014-09-25, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount command
>> was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
>> seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this took
>> me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly 30
>> seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick…
>>
>>The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily with
>>a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
>
> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
> on every PC on every desk".
>
Unless I am doing something high performance, I would not try to do anything
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Finally, everything worked as expected. Upon logoff, the umount command
>> was executed properly, while at logon, the task was delayed for 10
>> seconds allowing the mount to execute with the network up. All this took
>> me hours of testing and endless reboots. In Linux, it took me exactly 30
>> seconds to achieve the same result. Have your pick…
>>
>>The sad part is that this guy expected a Windows box to interact easily with
>>a non-Microsoft protocol like NFS. This is, most likely, by design.
>
> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
> on every PC on every desk".
>
with Windows with regards to file sharing besides the mundane defaults (namely
samba). Home use including media center type stuff is pretty light weight stuff.
I would never go to the trouble of setting up NFS in Windows for that kind of
thing. Samba works more than well enough.
--
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion
that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a
number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of
guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing
circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not
supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have
any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,
or turned back."
--- Robert A. Heinlein (1939)
chrisv
Sep 25, 2014, 4:09:34 PM9/25/14
to
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
>> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
>> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
>> on every PC on every desk".
>
> Unless I am doing something high performance, I would not try to do anything
>with Windows with regards to file sharing besides the mundane defaults (namely
>samba). Home use including media center type stuff is pretty light weight stuff.
>I would never go to the trouble of setting up NFS in Windows for that kind of
>thing. Samba works more than well enough.
Of course, one of the reasons that Samba works so well is because
Micro$oft was forced, via lawsuit, to turn-over their secret
networking protocols.
Filthy Winvocates would argue that there's nothing wrong with what M$
did, of course. Just "hard nosed, but fair, business tactics, you
know. Once you're entrenched, make it difficult for any alternative
product to co-exist with yours, making companies go 100% with your
product.
Nothing wrong with that - just ask "Hadron".
--
"What secret protocols you gibbering idiot?" - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark, defending his beloved Micro$oft Corp
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
>> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
>> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
>> on every PC on every desk".
>
> Unless I am doing something high performance, I would not try to do anything
>with Windows with regards to file sharing besides the mundane defaults (namely
>samba). Home use including media center type stuff is pretty light weight stuff.
>I would never go to the trouble of setting up NFS in Windows for that kind of
>thing. Samba works more than well enough.
Micro$oft was forced, via lawsuit, to turn-over their secret
networking protocols.
Filthy Winvocates would argue that there's nothing wrong with what M$
did, of course. Just "hard nosed, but fair, business tactics, you
know. Once you're entrenched, make it difficult for any alternative
product to co-exist with yours, making companies go 100% with your
product.
Nothing wrong with that - just ask "Hadron".
--
"What secret protocols you gibbering idiot?" - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark, defending his beloved Micro$oft Corp
Chris Ahlstrom
Sep 25, 2014, 8:18:34 PM9/25/14
to
chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
>>> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
>>> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
>>> on every PC on every desk".
>>
>> Unless I am doing something high performance, I would not try to do anything
>>with Windows with regards to file sharing besides the mundane defaults (namely
>>samba). Home use including media center type stuff is pretty light weight stuff.
>>I would never go to the trouble of setting up NFS in Windows for that kind of
>>thing. Samba works more than well enough.
>
> Of course, one of the reasons that Samba works so well is because
> Micro$oft was forced, via lawsuit, to turn-over their secret
> networking protocols.
When did that happen? I know the first couple of versions were
reverse-engineered.
Too bleary-eyed to google for it.
--
Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis.
It makes sense, when you don't think about it.
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Playing nice with others" is not in the monopolist's play-book. With
>>> IBM's endorsement launching them immediately to prominence, they then
>>> used every dirty trick in the book to encourage "a Microsoft software
>>> on every PC on every desk".
>>
>> Unless I am doing something high performance, I would not try to do anything
>>with Windows with regards to file sharing besides the mundane defaults (namely
>>samba). Home use including media center type stuff is pretty light weight stuff.
>>I would never go to the trouble of setting up NFS in Windows for that kind of
>>thing. Samba works more than well enough.
>
> Of course, one of the reasons that Samba works so well is because
> Micro$oft was forced, via lawsuit, to turn-over their secret
> networking protocols.
reverse-engineered.
Too bleary-eyed to google for it.
--
Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis.
It makes sense, when you don't think about it.
chrisv
Sep 26, 2014, 7:51:51 AM9/26/14
to
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Of course, one of the reasons that Samba works so well is because
>> Micro$oft was forced, via lawsuit, to turn-over their secret
>> networking protocols.
>
>When did that happen? I know the first couple of versions were
>reverse-engineered.
>
>Too bleary-eyed to google for it.
December 20, 2007
Samba Team Receives Microsoft Protocol Docs
Today the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF), a non-profit
organization created by the Software Freedom Law Center, signed an
agreement with Microsoft to receive the protocol documentation needed
to fully interoperate with the Microsoft Windows workgroup server
products and to make them available to Free Software projects such as
Samba.
Microsoft was required to make this information available to
competitors as part of the European Commission March 24th 2004
Decision in the antitrust lawsuit, after losing their appeal against
that decision on September 17th 2007.
Andrew Tridgell, creator of Samba, said, "We are very pleased to be
able to get access to the technical information necessary to continue
to develop Samba as a Free Software project. Although we were
disappointed the decision did not address the issue of patent claims
over the protocols, it was a great achievement for the European
Commission and for enforcement of antitrust laws in Europe. The
agreement allows us to keep Samba up to date with recent changes in
Microsoft Windows, and also helps other Free Software projects that
need to interoperate with Windows".
--
"The half-dozen freetards in COLA address Microsoft a hell of a lot
more than the 10's of thousands of employees at Microsoft address
Linux." - trolling fsckwit Ezekiel, lying shamelessly
> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Of course, one of the reasons that Samba works so well is because
>> Micro$oft was forced, via lawsuit, to turn-over their secret
>> networking protocols.
>
>When did that happen? I know the first couple of versions were
>reverse-engineered.
>
>Too bleary-eyed to google for it.
Samba Team Receives Microsoft Protocol Docs
Today the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF), a non-profit
organization created by the Software Freedom Law Center, signed an
agreement with Microsoft to receive the protocol documentation needed
to fully interoperate with the Microsoft Windows workgroup server
products and to make them available to Free Software projects such as
Samba.
Microsoft was required to make this information available to
competitors as part of the European Commission March 24th 2004
Decision in the antitrust lawsuit, after losing their appeal against
that decision on September 17th 2007.
Andrew Tridgell, creator of Samba, said, "We are very pleased to be
able to get access to the technical information necessary to continue
to develop Samba as a Free Software project. Although we were
disappointed the decision did not address the issue of patent claims
over the protocols, it was a great achievement for the European
Commission and for enforcement of antitrust laws in Europe. The
agreement allows us to keep Samba up to date with recent changes in
Microsoft Windows, and also helps other Free Software projects that
need to interoperate with Windows".
--
"The half-dozen freetards in COLA address Microsoft a hell of a lot
more than the 10's of thousands of employees at Microsoft address
Linux." - trolling fsckwit Ezekiel, lying shamelessly
Chris Ahlstrom
Sep 26, 2014, 8:43:18 AM9/26/14
to
chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, one of the reasons that Samba works so well is because
>>> Micro$oft was forced, via lawsuit, to turn-over their secret
>>> networking protocols.
>>
>>When did that happen? I know the first couple of versions were
>>reverse-engineered.
>
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, one of the reasons that Samba works so well is because
>>> Micro$oft was forced, via lawsuit, to turn-over their secret
>>> networking protocols.
>>
>>When did that happen? I know the first couple of versions were
>>reverse-engineered.
>
> December 20, 2007
>
> Samba Team Receives Microsoft Protocol Docs
>
> Today the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF), a non-profit
> organization created by the Software Freedom Law Center, signed an
> agreement with Microsoft to receive the protocol documentation needed
> to fully interoperate with the Microsoft Windows workgroup server
> products and to make them available to Free Software projects such as
> Samba.
>
> Microsoft was required to make this information available to
> competitors as part of the European Commission March 24th 2004
> Decision in the antitrust lawsuit, after losing their appeal against
> that decision on September 17th 2007.
>
> Andrew Tridgell, creator of Samba, said, "We are very pleased to be
> able to get access to the technical information necessary to continue
> to develop Samba as a Free Software project. Although we were
> disappointed the decision did not address the issue of patent claims
> over the protocols, it was a great achievement for the European
> Commission and for enforcement of antitrust laws in Europe. The
> agreement allows us to keep Samba up to date with recent changes in
> Microsoft Windows, and also helps other Free Software projects that
> need to interoperate with Windows".
Thanks!
>
> Samba Team Receives Microsoft Protocol Docs
>
> Today the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF), a non-profit
> organization created by the Software Freedom Law Center, signed an
> agreement with Microsoft to receive the protocol documentation needed
> to fully interoperate with the Microsoft Windows workgroup server
> products and to make them available to Free Software projects such as
> Samba.
>
> Microsoft was required to make this information available to
> competitors as part of the European Commission March 24th 2004
> Decision in the antitrust lawsuit, after losing their appeal against
> that decision on September 17th 2007.
>
> Andrew Tridgell, creator of Samba, said, "We are very pleased to be
> able to get access to the technical information necessary to continue
> to develop Samba as a Free Software project. Although we were
> disappointed the decision did not address the issue of patent claims
> over the protocols, it was a great achievement for the European
> Commission and for enforcement of antitrust laws in Europe. The
> agreement allows us to keep Samba up to date with recent changes in
> Microsoft Windows, and also helps other Free Software projects that
> need to interoperate with Windows".
> --
> "The half-dozen freetards in COLA address Microsoft a hell of a lot
> more than the 10's of thousands of employees at Microsoft address
> Linux." - trolling fsckwit Ezekiel, lying shamelessly
documents?
I still get of laugh thinking about Microsoft's "Linux Heat Map". Lolzers!
--
Genius is the talent of a person who is dead.
0 new messages