Author Topic: On "Learning Something New Every Day"  (Read 424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nation of One

  • { }
  • { ∅, { ∅ } }
  • Posts: 4756
  • Life teaches me not to want it.
    • What Now?
On "Learning Something New Every Day"
« on: April 05, 2019, 11:03:33 am »
It used to be that when one proclaimed, "Wow, I learn something new every day" that this was a good thing.  We are dynamic, even if we do tend to be creatures of habit and ritual.

The thing is, nowadays, it would appear that this "learning something new every day" has grown tired.  In other words, we may find ourselves having to learn more and more lifeless technicalities to maneuver in cybernetic ecosystems.  When one part of the ecosystem, say, for instance, an operating system such as "Windows 10" updates its system and changes the way it handles SMB1 and NetBios, this has an impact on machines [each a node in the vast network] running different operating systems, such as linux boxes using Samba to share drives or access a shared printer plugged into a machine running "Windows 10".

One finds oneself becoming annoyed at having to "learn something new every day."

Even those who do not necessarily rely on the corporate sparkle of Micro$oft Windows, if the users of other operating systems must interact with machines running "Windows 10," then there is potential for chaotic ramifications after each [FREQUENT] Windows 10 Update.

I presume this example will suffice in making the point that learning something new every day aint what it used to be.   ::)

In the old days, from the command line, print to lpr.  Now, in the world of multiuser systems like Linux, the technicalities surely encroach upon the technician and end users, whereby more and more of the burden of operation falls squarely on the shoulders of, who? --- you and me.

Maybe many say, who gives a f--k?  Just don't learn it.

Well, at some point each of us must draw the line.

Maybe, instead, it might be better to relearn something old.  There's alot I have to go over again and and again.

Aye, Man, I pity us all.   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote:

As for the SMB1 conflict with Windows as Print Server (for Linux clients): 

On the command line, you get this (with smbclient):

Reconnecting with SMB1 for workgroup listing.
Connection to 192.168.2.101 failed (Error NT_STATUS_RESOURCE_NAME_NOT_FOUND)
Failed to connect with SMB1 -- no workgroup available


[This is pure and absolute nonsense. Security for the sake of it. Anal-retentive OCD madness that ruins the desktop experience. The reason is, they changed the default protocol version and actually, who cares? People just want to be able to share things with their Windows boxes easily!]

See Samba shares problem fix
[ NOTE TO SELF?: it does not fix what it claims to fix. ]
« Last Edit: April 06, 2019, 08:09:36 am by Miserable Mike »
Things They Will Never Tell YouArthur Schopenhauer has been the most radical and defiant of all troublemakers.

Gorticide @ Nothing that is so, is so DOT edu

~ Tabak und Kaffee Süchtigen ~

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Nation of One

  • { }
  • { ∅, { ∅ } }
  • Posts: 4756
  • Life teaches me not to want it.
    • What Now?
Annoying Cybernetic Ecosystems
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2019, 08:28:48 am »
There comes a point where a wolf might refuse to learn what a dog learns, not because it is incapable nor inferior, but because it would prefer not to learn such things.

OK.  I get it.  We're all under mass hypnosis. 

In the meantime:  Note below

In /etc/samba/smb.conf, add
client max protocol = NT1  (this was also the fix I pointed to originally; this time there is a "But ...")
Quote
client max protocol = NT1

But ... there is a reason why Samba set the client max to SMBv3.11.

Windows 10 and many other SMB / Samba servers have disabled SMBv1 for security purposes.

If the Linux client can only use SMBv1 no connection is possible to these servers.

So we as desktop users are between a Rock:

If you set "client max protocol" back to NT1 the Linux client will be able to find all the servers but will not be able to connect to any that disabled SMBv1.

And a Hard Place:

If you allow the default of SMBv3.11 it will not be able to discover the servers but it will be able to connect to them.

NOTE: This is not a host name resolution problem - it's a host browsing ( discovery ) problem.

At a certain point, I become disgusted enough to stop going around and around in circles with this problem.  Sometimes it is a relief just to spell out the situation enough to recognize that it is a Catch 22.

Yet another note to self:  How to share files between a Linux and Windows computer

It is what it is ... That's for sure.  That's just a brute fact.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2019, 12:03:52 pm by Miserable Mike »
Things They Will Never Tell YouArthur Schopenhauer has been the most radical and defiant of all troublemakers.

Gorticide @ Nothing that is so, is so DOT edu

~ Tabak und Kaffee Süchtigen ~