Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux > #32716 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hank williams <hank@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-22 19:12 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-06 05:48 +0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux
Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 19:12 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2015-12-22 11:19 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? George Schroeder <gschroed@killSpam.pacific.edu> - 2015-12-22 13:29 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2015-12-22 15:07 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 21:29 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-23 00:24 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 23:37 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-23 05:05 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-22 23:54 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Clément <lcmello.listas@terra.com.br> - 2015-12-23 03:13 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-23 05:11 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-23 05:41 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? George Schroeder <gschroed@killSpam.pacific.edu> - 2015-12-22 17:42 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-17 20:57 -0200
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-17 20:01 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-02-01 13:48 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-12-22 20:24 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-22 20:30 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2015-12-22 12:57 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-12-22 20:42 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 21:35 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-22 23:46 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-12-23 01:12 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 22:45 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-22 22:56 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 23:27 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-22 23:58 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2015-12-22 18:52 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? wimpunk <ybwdlapvxvun@spammotel.com> - 2015-12-28 16:40 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-22 23:53 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-22 22:52 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? hank williams <hank@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 23:31 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-12-22 18:14 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? jotagera@gmail.com - 2015-12-29 11:48 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 15:49 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2015-12-30 10:01 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-12-30 14:05 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2015-12-30 10:05 -0800
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-12-31 10:43 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-31 13:00 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-12-31 16:58 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-31 11:48 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-01-01 09:50 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-01 02:41 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-01 17:57 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 00:59 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-02 04:22 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2016-01-02 18:07 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-02 13:05 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2016-01-04 14:31 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-04 10:39 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-12 17:52 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2016-01-13 04:11 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-13 08:51 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-01-13 11:38 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-01-13 18:10 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-01-01 16:42 +0000
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-01 14:53 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-01 19:08 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:28 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-02 04:09 -0600
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 03:25 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-01-02 17:19 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 10:07 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-02 12:29 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-02 07:12 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 10:44 -0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2016-01-04 14:38 +0100
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Vico T <vicot@blank.nada> - 2016-01-01 16:50 +0700
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Kolmasaika <gorwell@1984.gov> - 2016-01-03 15:27 +0200
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-03 08:48 -0500
Re: Easiest way to transfer large (video) from Linux to Windows over WiFi? Henry <henry@home.nil> - 2016-01-06 05:48 +0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | hank williams <hank@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5cfmk$76k$2@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #32725 |
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:42:13 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote: > apache, it saves installing stuff on windows. $ sudo apt-get install apache E: Package 'apache' has no installation candidate $ apt-cache search apache Lists too much stuff $ apt-cache search apache | grep httpd libapache2-mod-svn - Apache Subversion server modules for Apache httpd libapache2-svn - Apache Subversion server modules for Apache httpd (dummy package) $ sudo apt-cache search 'web server' Again lists too much stuff to make sense out of the results What's the command to install an Apache HTTP server on Linux?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 23:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5cnd2$8co$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32727 |
On Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015, at 21:35:16h +0000,
Hank Williams asked:
> What's the command to install an Apache HTTP server on Linux?
On Debian based systems, they decided to differentiate between
apache v1 releases and apache v2 releases. Even though apache v1
is no longer available, only apache v2, the apache package is
still named apache2. Similar to this, the DNS package is named bind9.
So apt-get install apache2
ii apache2 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server
ii apache2-bin 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server (binary files and modules)
ii apache2-data 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server (common files)
ii apache2-doc 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server (on-site documentation)
ii apache2-utils 2.4.7-1ubuntu4.8 Apache HTTP Server (utility programs for web servers)
There are two significant light weight alternatives to apache2, namely
lighthttpd and nginx, with nginx supposedly having the edge, but personal
preferences (eg configuration syntax) will play a large part in whether
people argue for one of the other.
One downside of nginx is that if you want to add add-on functionality (eg scgi),
one has to re-compile the binary to include that add-on, no dynamic modules
(last time I checked anyways).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5cse3$2re$2@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #32727 |
On 2015-12-22, hank williams <hank@aol.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:42:13 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote: > >> apache, it saves installing stuff on windows. > > $ sudo apt-get install apache > E: Package 'apache' has no installation candidate > $ apt-cache search apache > Lists too much stuff > $ apt-cache search apache | grep httpd > libapache2-mod-svn - Apache Subversion server modules for Apache httpd > libapache2-svn - Apache Subversion server modules for Apache httpd (dummy package) > $ sudo apt-cache search 'web server' > Again lists too much stuff to make sense out of the results > > What's the command to install an Apache HTTP server on Linux? Apache as not much easier to configure than samba. possibly harder. samba can usually be configured with only carful reading of the default config file. I often find I need to search documentation to configure apache. -- \_(ツ)_
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hank williams <hank@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 22:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5cjq1$fa8$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #32716 |
Since most suggested Samba, I'll try to get that running again: https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts But, I always hate Linux tutorials because they assume everything is absolutely perfect, and when it's not (which *always* happens), then you have to guess. When "I" guess, everything fails. But I'll ask you what to guess this time, and hope that this helps me get past the guesses in the tutorial. My first "guess" happens when the tutorial expects a fully qualified domain name when I don't have a FQDN at all. But the tutorial just *assumes* I put my Linux FQDN into the Windows hosts file. What I see as my Linux FQDN: $ hostname -f hank $ cat /etc/hostname hank $ head /etc/hosts | grep hank 127.0.1.1 hank What Windows apparently needs (example from the tutorial): 192.168.0.100 server1.example.com ubuntu I'm not a *.com as I'm just a homeowner. I have an ISP but he isn't a big company. So what do I use for my Linux FQDN in the Windows hosts file? Do I just use "hank" or hank.something?.com?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5ckea$r01$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32728 |
On 2015-12-22, hank williams <hank@aol.com> wrote: > Since most suggested Samba, I'll try to get that running again: > https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts > > But, I always hate Linux tutorials because they assume everything > is absolutely perfect, and when it's not (which *always* happens), > then you have to guess. > > When "I" guess, everything fails. But I'll ask you what to guess > this time, and hope that this helps me get past the guesses in > the tutorial. > > My first "guess" happens when the tutorial expects a fully > qualified domain name when I don't have a FQDN at all. > > But the tutorial just *assumes* I put my Linux FQDN into the > Windows hosts file. > > What I see as my Linux FQDN: > $ hostname -f > hank > > $ cat /etc/hostname > hank > > $ head /etc/hosts | grep hank > 127.0.1.1 hank > > What Windows apparently needs (example from the tutorial): > 192.168.0.100 server1.example.com ubuntu You can use hank on Windows as well. 192.168.0.100 hank > > I'm not a *.com as I'm just a homeowner. I have an ISP but he > isn't a big company. So what do I use for my Linux FQDN in the > Windows hosts file? > > Do I just use "hank" or hank.something?.com? The ip address is the important part. The name is just there as an easy nemonic for you. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hank williams <hank@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 23:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5cm9n$fa8$2@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #32730 |
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:56:11 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
> You can use hank on Windows as well.
> 192.168.0.100 hank
Thanks.
The tutorial just *assumes* you already know this answer!
> The ip address is the important part.
> The name is just there as an easy mnemonic for you.
That brings me to my *second* guess, which, again, the tutorial
just assumes you know the answer to.
https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts
Since I have a typical home system, which uses DHCP on the home
router, so whatever the IP address of the Linux laptop is today
will be *different* tomorrow.
While it's easy enough to find the IP address of the Linux
laptop today using ifconfig, do I have to edit the Windows
hosts file every single day to change it each time it changes
on the Linux laptop?
$ ifconfig
wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0a:CF:9A:22:43
inet addr:192.168.1.4 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
The tutorial doesn't say.
Do I have to edit the Windows hosts file every single time the
Linux machine boots to a new DHCP local LAN IP address?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 23:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5co2l$bu9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32733 |
On 2015-12-22, hank williams <hank@aol.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:56:11 +0000, William Unruh wrote: > >> You can use hank on Windows as well. >> 192.168.0.100 hank > > Thanks. > > The tutorial just *assumes* you already know this answer! > >> The ip address is the important part. >> The name is just there as an easy mnemonic for you. > > That brings me to my *second* guess, which, again, the tutorial > just assumes you know the answer to. > https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts > > Since I have a typical home system, which uses DHCP on the home > router, so whatever the IP address of the Linux laptop is today > will be *different* tomorrow. You can always tell you home router to use static IP for laptop. > > While it's easy enough to find the IP address of the Linux > laptop today using ifconfig, do I have to edit the Windows > hosts file every single day to change it each time it changes > on the Linux laptop? > $ ifconfig > wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0a:CF:9A:22:43 > inet addr:192.168.1.4 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > > The tutorial doesn't say. > > Do I have to edit the Windows hosts file every single time the > Linux machine boots to a new DHCP local LAN IP address? Yes. Or you can use the ip address rather than the hostname ssh 192.160.0.107 Or you can tell you router to always give the same address to your laptop (or rather to any machine with its MAC address.) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 18:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n5d24c$4mu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32733 |
On 12/22/2015 3:27 PM, hank williams wrote: > Do I have to edit the Windows hosts file every single time the > Linux machine boots to a new DHCP local LAN IP address? > Use address reservation in your router to assign the same IP address every time to each machine's MAC address. The benefits of static IP while maintaining DHCP flexibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wimpunk <ybwdlapvxvun@spammotel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7o18lc-op3.ln1@tisnix.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #32730 |
On 12/22/15 23:56, William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-12-22, hank williams <hank@aol.com> wrote: >> Since most suggested Samba, I'll try to get that running again: >> https://www.howtoforge.com/samba-server-ubuntu-14.04-lts >> >> But, I always hate Linux tutorials because they assume everything >> is absolutely perfect, and when it's not (which *always* happens), >> then you have to guess. >> >> When "I" guess, everything fails. But I'll ask you what to guess >> this time, and hope that this helps me get past the guesses in >> the tutorial. >> >> My first "guess" happens when the tutorial expects a fully >> qualified domain name when I don't have a FQDN at all. >> >> But the tutorial just *assumes* I put my Linux FQDN into the >> Windows hosts file. >> >> What I see as my Linux FQDN: >> $ hostname -f >> hank >> >> $ cat /etc/hostname >> hank >> >> $ head /etc/hosts | grep hank >> 127.0.1.1 hank >> >> What Windows apparently needs (example from the tutorial): >> 192.168.0.100 server1.example.com ubuntu > > You can use hank on Windows as well. > 192.168.0.100 hank > If you're using mdns you can just use hank.local to find the server.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 23:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5cnqb$8co$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32728 |
On Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015, at 22:45:21h +0000, Hank Williams wrote: > My first "guess" happens when the tutorial expects a fully > qualified domain name when I don't have a FQDN at all. So long as you ensure that it does not leak out into the Internet (viz e-mail headers which do not get deleted or rewritten), you can always use a fictitious domain name on your LAN. > What Windows apparently needs (example from the tutorial): > 192.168.0.100 server1.example.com ubuntu Seeing as windows is going to be using the SAMBA server, it should not care about the FQDN and just using the simple LMHOSTS names for SAMBA/CIFS hosts and if you are not running a local DNS, you can just put the hostname without the domain name but with the IP address in the Windows C host file. Of course whenever you have a server on your LAN, it makes sense to ensure that it has a static IP address, which may be more of an issue for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5ck7s$r01$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32716 |
On 2015-12-22, hank williams <hank@aol.com> wrote: > Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer > (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way) > over my local network. > > What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to > Windows? > > I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably. > I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux? > > What do you use to transfer large files from linux to > windows over your local LAN? Probably quickest would be to copy to the usb stick and then read it off in Windows. Or set up linux as an ftp server, (eg vsftpd) and use Windows to get the ftp file from the linux server. I would use wired rather than wireless-- faster. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hank williams <hank@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 23:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5cmfs$fa8$3@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #32729 |
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:52:44 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
> Or set up linux as an ftp server, (eg vsftpd) and use Windows to get the
> ftp file from the linux server.
Thanks for that suggestion.
I ran this, to install the server on Linux:
$ sudo apt-get install vsftpd
Preparing to unpack .../vsftpd_3.0.2-1ubuntu2.14.04.1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking vsftpd (3.0.2-1ubuntu2.14.04.1) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.6.7.1-1ubuntu1) ...
Processing triggers for ureadahead (0.100.0-16) ...
Setting up vsftpd (3.0.2-1ubuntu2.14.04.1) ...
vsftpd start/running, process 27240
Processing triggers for ureadahead (0.100.0-16) ...
I'm not sure what to do next though, so I'll look it up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 18:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n5clcj$494$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32716 |
hank williams wrote:
> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer
> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way)
> over my local network.
>
> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to
> Windows?
>
> I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably.
> I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux?
>
> What do you use to transfer large files from linux to
> windows over your local LAN?
The world is divided into two nice neat groups :-)
Those who can deal with the security walls built around
our networking implementions.
And those who cannot deal with it.
Your Windows machine, already has SAMBA running on it,
as Windows file sharing. Most of the Linux clients will
already be able to talk to the Windows box immediately,
without installing packages.
The more modern the Windows box is, the more pesky
is the security. When I set older Windows boxes for
wide open permissions, it usually works. A more modern
Windows can be annoying you with the authentication
box when it isn't needed.
In terms of approaches, you can "push" or "pull" files.
On my network, the choice is made based on the
performance asymmetry. One of my machines only
does 20MB/sec over GbE, so I need to "push" from
that machine, to a machine that can do 112MB/sec
continuously. One direction can be five times
faster than the other direction, in terms of
who has the server, and who is the client.
Adding additional interfacing standards, is I suppose
like playing the lottery. But generally, on modern
tools, it's pretty hard to shake the concepts
of security - virtually everything will involve
SSH or use passwords, and involve messing around.
(Windows 8 has HomeGroup, which is fine for homogenous
environments, but useless for anything else, and I
don't use that here. The odds of two machines using
that at the same time, is slim.)
Only twenty years ago, did we have tools that implemented
"private" authentication. You could set up account
"joe" password "joe" and it would apply only to your
FTP server. Rather than relying on the accounts and
passwords used by the OS. Those were the good days,
when it was easy to do stuff.
Now, you will find OSes which deprecate the easy
ways, and only leave the hard ways.
*******
And while they claim to be making very fast
USB3 flash sticks, the benchmarks don't always
pan out.
http://www.storagereview.com/patriot_supersonic_rage_2_usb_flash_drive_review
You could always stick an SSD inside a USB3 enclosure
that has UASP support, and give that a try as
a substitute for a flash stick. Then transfer
the stuff via sneakernet.
*******
And if you're bored, you can try this. For rcp usage.
http://rshd.sourceforge.net/
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jotagera@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 11:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7862ac6e-9d13-4d87-ab23-f35d0047c14c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #32716 |
Em terça-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2015 17:12:51 UTC-2, hank williams escreveu: > Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer > (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way) > over my local network. > > What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to > Windows? > > I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably. > I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux? > > What do you use to transfer large files from linux to > windows over your local LAN? Hi If your purpose is watch the movies, try to use "universal media server" on your linux box. It is free and you can download it from www.universalmediaserver.com Best regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 15:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <KoidnQzDI_twYh_LnZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #32914 |
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:48:43 -0800, jotagera wrote: > Em terça-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2015 17:12:51 UTC-2, hank williams escreveu: >> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer >> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way) >> over my local network. >> >> What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to >> Windows? >> >> I tried setting up samba on linux but that failed miserably. >> I'm thinking a second bet might be an ftp server on linux? >> >> What do you use to transfer large files from linux to >> windows over your local LAN? > > Hi > > If your purpose is watch the movies, try to use "universal > media server" on your linux box. It is free and you can > download it from www.universalmediaserver.com > > Best regards. Thanks for the link. I didn't know about that one. There is also ReadyMedia previously know as miniDLNA. It is also available in most of the Linux repos. Source code here... http://sourceforge.net/projects/minidlna/ -- <Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453 The cow died so I don't need your bull!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 10:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dehkriFga45U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32716 |
On 12/22/2015 08:12 PM, hank williams wrote: > Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer > (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way) > over my local network. > > What's the easiest way to transfer large files from Linux to > Windows? scp, nfs, if you have a newer version of the spyware, then it has support for ssh and nfs, how good they are, is another question. -- //Aho
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WsWdnXxBldD_eh7LnZ2dnUU78f2dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #32933 |
"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in message news:dehkriFga45U2@mid.individual.net... > On 12/22/2015 08:12 PM, hank williams wrote: >> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer >> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way) >> over my local network. In my experience, forget copying via wifi and use Ethernet instead. Even with a supposedly 300 Mbps wireless router and a good signal strength (eg laptop right next to router), I get very much lower transfers speeds for laptop to/from desktop over wifi than over Ethernet. In both cases, the desktop is connected to the router by Ethernet, so the only difference is laptop to router by wifi or by Ethernet. Wifi is notoriously poor when it's carrying two different signals (eg laptop to router and router to desktop) which is why I've eliminated that by having the desktop connected by Ethernet. For normal usage, you'd not notice the difference, but when you do a large transfer (eg copying a 1 GB file from local c:\folder\filename to remote \\server\sharename\filename) the difference is very apparent. For example (copying using Windows Explorer): 1. Copy 2.1 GB file from c: on laptop to \\desktop\sharename over wifi which is reporting 72 Mbps and is typically using about 40-60% of the bandwidth - takes 10m 38s (transfer speed reported at about 3.4 MB/sec) 2. Copy same file to same sharename over Ethernet (ie disable laptop's wifi and plug in Ethernet cable) - flat-out 99% usage of 100 Mbps - takes 3m 10s (transfer speed is about 11 MB/sec) This is for Windows 7 to Windows 7. I'm not sure whether Linux shows as much difference between transfer rates for wireless and Ethernet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 10:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cKudnZAzKeZlgRnLnZ2dnUU7-Y_OydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #32961 |
On 2015-12-30, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: > "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in message > news:dehkriFga45U2@mid.individual.net... >> On 12/22/2015 08:12 PM, hank williams wrote: >>> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer >>> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way) >>> over my local network. > > In my experience, forget copying via wifi and use Ethernet instead. Even > with a supposedly 300 Mbps wireless router and a good signal strength (eg > laptop right next to router), I get very much lower transfers speeds for > laptop to/from desktop over wifi than over Ethernet. In both cases, the > desktop is connected to the router by Ethernet, so the only difference is > laptop to router by wifi or by Ethernet. As someone who copies 25 to 50 GB files many times daily I can agree with this. Even if you have to use a USB to Ethernet dongle, it is worth doing. WiFi is good for the internet, but Gigabit Ethernet is much faster. And now we can see 10G on the horizon. I'm already considering it right now. -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 10:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QZadnUZQNOcmmxjLnZ2dnUU78SOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #32971 |
"Marek Novotny" <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote in message news:cKudnZAzKeZlgRnLnZ2dnUU7-Y_OydjZ@giganews.com... > On 2015-12-30, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in message >> news:dehkriFga45U2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 12/22/2015 08:12 PM, hank williams wrote: >>>> Periodically I have large video files that I'd like to transfer >>>> (copy or move) from Linux to Windows (rarely the other way) >>>> over my local network. >> >> In my experience, forget copying via wifi and use Ethernet instead. Even >> with a supposedly 300 Mbps wireless router and a good signal strength (eg >> laptop right next to router), I get very much lower transfers speeds for >> laptop to/from desktop over wifi than over Ethernet. In both cases, the >> desktop is connected to the router by Ethernet, so the only difference is >> laptop to router by wifi or by Ethernet. > > As someone who copies 25 to 50 GB files many times daily I can agree > with this. Even if you have to use a USB to Ethernet dongle, it is worth > doing. WiFi is good for the internet, but Gigabit Ethernet is much > faster. And now we can see 10G on the horizon. I'm already considering > it right now. Ethernet also has the advantage that it is far more reliable. I find that I occasionally have to disconnect and reconnect the wireless connection on wireless-connected devices when they lose the ability to talk (on a variety of Windows, Android and Apple iPad devices, and to a variety of Netgear, Belkin and TPLink routers); sometimes it's even necessary to reboot a computer or a router to get normal service back. Ethernet doesn't suffer from that. I have an always-on PC that I use (amongst other things) for recording TV and which I sometimes access remotely via TeamViewer when I'm away from home (eg to schedule new programmes to be recorded) and you can't disconnect/reconnect wireless on this PC if your only way of accessing the PC is via that wireless connection! That's why I made sure the router is physically close to that PC, so I can use Ethernet. If I want to transfer large (eg multi GB) files/folders to/from my wireless laptop, I always plug in an Ethernet lead to the laptop to do that. As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes, but it's slower for bulk transfers of data and it's not quite 100% reliable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n638sr$qqa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33037 |
On Thursday, December 31st, 2015, at 10:43:09h +0000, NY noted: > As you say, wireless is fine for almost all purposes Never attempt firmware upgrades on devices connected by WiFi and not ethernet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux
csiph-web