filePro on SuSe 9.0 Linux NFS mounts - problem with NO LOCKSAVAILABLE

[Brian K. White]

Fairlight wrote:
>> From inside the gravity well of a singularity, Bill Campbell shouted:
>>> ln -sf /etc/init.d/nfslock /etc/init.d/rc3.d/S99nfslock
>>> ln -sf /etc/init.d/nfslock /etc/init.d/rc5.d/S99nfslock
>>
>> The official way to do this on SuSE which puts things where
>> they're supposed to be in the start/stop hierarcy:
>>
>> cd /etc/init.d
>> insserv nfslock
>
> I've seen that command before, I think I've even used it once. :) You
> know me and doing things at the low level rather than using tools.
> Thanks for the reminder though.
>
> So, any ideas as to how the script gets activated when I don't use
> YaST at all to set up the server, yet manages to not be activated
> when I'm using the client?  :)  I can guarantee NFS was never enabled
> at install in either case.

Well, call me crazy, but I generally do things the way they ask, and only if 
that doesn't work do I think anything is wrong.
I understand about insisting on knowing the innards too. I'm just saying, 
they wrote scripts and did other things and it all forms a system, and by 
not using the published interface to that system, you possibly break 
assumptions left and right, and all bets are off and you are on your own, 
which is fine because by bypassing the presented interface you declare 
superior knowledge anyways.

Not saying the yast way or the insserv way is free of blemish, not even 
saying I myself use yast for everything that could be done from yast. I'm 
just saying if I try to do something and it doesn't work, then my _starting_ 
point is the "official" way, if  I followed TFM (as in rtfm) and it still 
doesn't work then make them answerable for tfm and then get support from 
them. if that doesn't work out, then is the time to be second guessing the 
system. Otherwise you just shoot yourself in the foot.

There have been a few things so far that I know, in theory, and in prior 
practice, how to do, and it didn't work on suse, and I backed up a step and 
looked around in yast for anything that looked relevant, found something, 
used it, and it just worked. Kind of wrankles a little having some stupid 
user interface do some job that I usually do myself. Especially wrankles 
that I turned out to need that dummy front end just like the great unwashed 
masses since I already failed to do the job directly. But the feeling goes 
away when you simply assume the premise that suse has probably riddled the 
system with little tweaks and assumptions so that they can provide that 
quality administration tool, and so the whole box is slightly non-standard 
and it's not a sign of impending luserhood at all that I don't know all 
those proprietary tweaks.

This is a recent development though. This has never been true (at least for 
me) on any prior version or dist of linux i've used. They all had things 
like redhats control panel etc and they all either sucked, or only actually 
worked for the most common case set of assumptions, or they only even tried 
to things that were so simple that it was practically no different from just 
editing the relevant files directly. So I'm not saying it's automatically 
stupid backwards self-inflicted injury to bypass these things without even 
looking at them. Mostly that's been the only way ever to administer linux 
unless you want to go insane.

Yast, for me, so far, has been a different story. It seems to be a complex 
system that actually does something besides be a thinly veiled file editor, 
and one that actually works, and one that actually allows you to make full 
use of the various things it configures. You don't give up power & 
flexability by using it.

Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx  Linux SCO  Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD  #callahans Satriani