Linux/Windows Slave Sharing

I'm pretty new to Linux and I don't know much about it. How can I share a slave drive between the two? I'm using Fedora Core 3 and Windows XP pro, and the slave is FAT32.

EDIT: Put this in blogs by mistake, could a mod please move to EE? Heh, thanks.

You...mount it from within Linux?

You will have to find out what the hdd name is under linux (something like hdb1 under /dev).

Theorically Linux should have automatically mounted it, but if it hasn't, try this:

1, Create a new folder in /mnt called 'share' or something suitable

2, From a terminal, cd into /dev
3, type mount hdb1 /mnt/share

Hopefully that should have mounted your fat32 drive under /mnt/share.

Ok, I'll give this a try.

Also, why is it that you need to be logged into root in order to install progams to or gain access to /usr? Did I duff something up, aren't you supposed to be able to install programs into there while on an account?

gatewatcher said:

Ok, I'll give this a try.

Also, why is it that you need to be logged into root in order to install progams to or gain access to /usr? Did I duff something up, aren't you supposed to be able to install programs into there while on an account?

Every distro I've seen makes /usr only readable to non-root users. If you don't like it, then chmod it.

exp(x) said:

chmod it.

Bad idea.

Arioch said:

Bad idea.

Heh, ok then. I should have a disclaimer next to my name that says "never listen to for linux advice". I know only enough to keep my server running what I need it to.

/usr should be readable to all users, but not writable to anyone except root. That goes double for server machines.

gatewatcher said:

aren't you supposed to be able to install programs into there while on an account?

No.

Think of it this way: the whole concept of root and non-root users is to handle large environments with lots of computers and a paid system administrator. When you are a user, you can do anything you want to your own files, but you shouldnt be able to do anything to break the overall system. If anyone could install programs, anyone could break the computers, as they could install a malicious program. As the sysadmin is the only person with root access, only they can install things (or do anything else that could screw people over).

It is bad practice to log in as root. I never do; infact, the system I use doesnt have a root login. You should log in as a user and use the 'su' or 'sudo' commands to become root when you need to.

Ubuntu rules!

fraggle said:

Think of it this way: the whole concept of root and non-root users is to handle large environments with lots of computers and a paid system administrator. When you are a user, you can do anything you want to your own files, but you shouldnt be able to do anything to break the overall system. If anyone could install programs, anyone could break the computers, as they could install a malicious program. As the sysadmin is the only person with root access, only they can install things (or do anything else that could screw people over).

It is bad practice to log in as root. I never do; infact, the system I use doesnt have a root login. You should log in as a user and use the 'su' or 'sudo' commands to become root when you need to.

That much I know. I can't even telnet into my server as root, so everything I do requiring more permissions must be done in su mode. I always './configure' and 'make' as my normal account, and then 'make install' as su.

exp(x) said:

telnet

Bzzt.

Arioch said:

Bzzt.

How else do you propose I connect to a rack server that has no video card or keyboard/mouse plugins? This is not a desktop.

exp(x) said:

How else do you propose I connect to a rack server that has no video card or keyboard/mouse plugins? This is not a desktop.

I'd recommend SSH over Telnet.

EDIT: Gatwatcher, also...if you don't want to continuously remount your drive by typing in those commands each time, look into putting the commands into your startup scripts (I put it in /etc/rc.d/rc.local, for Slackware).

DJ_Haruko said:

I'd recommend SSH over Telnet.

Hmm.. I thought about SSH, but does it really matter since the only computer that can access my server through ports other than http is my desktop? It's not like the whole world can just type 'telnet <my ip>' and see the login screen.

exp(x) said:

Hmm.. I thought about SSH, but does it really matter since the only computer that can access my server through ports other than http is my desktop? It's not like the whole world can just type 'telnet <my ip>' and see the login screen.

I think that they could scan your ports to see which respond and which don't. So they could find your telnet port. Besides, SSH is free (I think), and doesn't need all that much more than Telnet in terms of horsepower. But that's my 2-cents.

DJ_Haruko said:

I think that they could scan your ports to see which respond and which don't. So they could find your telnet port.

My router is set to block those ports, though. Port 23 will not respond to anyone except my desktop, which is on the LAN. Installing SSH shouldn't be hard for me, but I don't think it's necessary unless I plan on accessing my server remotely. Of course, I could be wrong; it certainly wouldn't be a first.

fraggle said:

It is bad practice to log in as root. I never do; infact, the system I use doesnt have a root login. You should log in as a user and use the 'su' or 'sudo' commands to become root when you need to.

That's how I eventually installed it, being logged into my account and using su to make install. Thanks for the explanation!

Eleven SSH tricks. SSH does more stuff than telnet does, its not just a matter of encryption.

exp(x) said:

How else do you propose I connect to a rack server that has no video card or keyboard/mouse plugins? This is not a desktop.

What version of Linux are you running?

I'm pretty sure it's a modified version of Redhat. Kernel 2.2.16C33_III (Yes, it's old, but I haven't a clue how to compile a newer kernel with all the hardware specific modules and whatnot).