Post by Silver SlimerPost by Peter KöhlmannPost by Silver SlimerPost by Peter KöhlmannPost by Silver SlimerPost by spindriftPost by Silver SlimerPost by spindriftPost by Jim PolaskiPost by spindriftPost by MelzzzzzOn Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:00:26 -0400
Post by spindriftPost by MelzzzzzOn 23 Oct 2016 00:47:53 GMT
Post by Jim PolaskiPost by MelzzzzzOn 23 Oct 2016 00:29:36 GMT
Post by Jim PolaskiTouche'
That should shut SMELLlllllllzzzzz up.
You are flatfish, no doubt, prick.
Wrong.
You're just mad because spindrift made an ass of you.
He didn;t how he successfully updated in *terminal* while
unsuccessfully in octopi? This looks like forged screen.
Because when you start Octopi it asks you if you would like to
run the update in a terminal.
That is what I chose.
You don't seem to be Linux knowledgeable.
Where are the conflicts shown in terminal?
I didn't see them in the terminal window although they might have
been there. The messages scroll by quickly. They are shown in the
screenshot though in the gui which stays up on the screen even
when you select run in a terminal.
You really need to educate yourself wrt Linux because at this
point you are looking like a fool.
I give you ~ 3 days with Linux and you'll be running back to
Windows. Good luck getting Linux to reliably see your Windows
shares. You haven't experienced Linux until you have messed with
Samba which is what you need to run in order to make Windows
shares visable. This should get you started.
https://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/1861
Scared yet?
Yes, it's frightening. That looks like a huge headache just to be
able to see my Windows network.
Windows 10 set up a simple home network by default and everything
worked. All computers see each other and shared drives just work.
That's all I require. Why does Linux make this so difficult?
Because by default Linux is not made to work on Windows or with
Windows software. We can't really fault the operating system for
that. It does the best that it can with Samba and from what I
understand, it's quite a decent workaround but it's obvious that it
will always be playing catch-up considering Microsoft purposely
changes things in the system to keep Linux users out.
That's a reasonable answer. Is Samba required for a Linux box to see
another Linux box or does it just work?
From one Linux box to another, everything you need is essentially
already installed and both machines simply need to be using the same
domain to be available to one another. For a Linux machine to see a
Windows network and operate on it, Samba is a necessity.
Wrong, Samba is required if windows machines need to see linux resources
Just don't show too openly that you know diddly squat about linux. This
time it was glaringly obvious
<http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/linux-and-open-source/how-to-join-ubuntu-to-a-windows-workgroup/>
Notice that installing Samba is the first fucking task you deliberately
stupid Kraut.
Nope. It is *not* if you just want to use windows shares on linux, you
blubbering idiot
Samba is needed for sharing *linux* resources with windows clients, you
incompetent cretin
And don't tell me something about Ubuntu, that linux version for windows
idiots. It is a version for the completely incompetent, like you
Everything and the kitchen sink is installed there, needed or not
Your claim of "For a Linux machine to see a Windows network and operate
on it, Samba is a necessity." is utter balderdash and just shows that you
know diddly squat about linux
What does "operate on it" mean to you? If you want to operate on a
Windows network, that _includes_ Windows being able to see your
resources on the Linux machine as well.
Wrong, that does *not* mean that. The question posed by "spindrift" was not
about sharing linux resources in a windows SMB network, it was about a linux
machine using windows shares. Which is *exactly* the case where you don't
need to install Samba, since Samba is only needed when you want to share
linux resources in a SMB network
Post by Silver SlimerIf it goes one way, it's not very operational, is it?
It is *very* operational. It simply depends if there is any need to share
linux resources, you incompetent cretin
Your claims about wanting to run linux and knowing more about it are just
that, claims. You don't know diddly squat about linux, but when someone who
does corrects your idiocy you start to post cretinous claims about that one
not knowing linux at all.
Nearly everyone in cola knows linux better than you do, you sputtering fool
Post by Silver SlimerYou might want to read complete sentences before you start calling
everyone an idiot because the end result is that _you_ look like the
idiot that you are.
You *are* an idiot. You can't read at all, and then you provide completely
meaningless advice as with your above link. Which did not address the
original question at all