Hello. I *really* hope someone could be good enough to help me on
this. Bear with me, this is a linux question after the windows
tatter...

I have a dedicated windows server with oneandone, which i used to
administer via Remote Desktop. Last night I was configuring IPSec to
lock down some ports and accidentally closed ALL the ports. I can no
longer gain access to my server. (applause)

My hosts offered two choices - re-image the server and lose
everything, or create a linux boot and allow me to use ssh (putty) to
login to the server and FTP my data to my computer at home.

I've been a windows programmer for years, but when it comes to linux I
know nothing. It's imperative that I get that data off the server
before it can be re-imaged, my business will fail otherwise. I
promise to backup every day after today!!!

I would love it if somebody could list the commands or point me in the
right direction in order to achieve this.

The server has a drive C: and a drive E: - my data is on E. I need to
login using putty, and ftp the entire contents of drive E to my home
computer.

Please, please help!

Regards,

James

"J" == James <alphanordix@yahoo.co.uk>:
J> I've been a windows programmer for years, but when it comes to linux I
J> know nothing. It's imperative that I get that data off the server
J> before it can be re-imaged, my business will fail otherwise. I
J> promise to backup every day after today!!!

If your data is that important, don't take any risks. Hire a linux
consultant to do the job.

-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

On 27 Nov 2003 19:56:00 -0000, Anonymous <BigappleRemailer@Optonline.Net> wrote:

....... <<raises hand>>
..
--
/// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
\\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
You have junk mail.

alphanordix@yahoo.co.uk (James) wrote in message news:<3c90f2ea.0311270413.1997190c@posting.google. com>...
Its OK - FTP is pretty much the same wether you use Linux or Windows.

I have to admit I am rather confused by your post. If you have closed
all ports on the remote machine, how do you intend to access it? Could
you not contact OneAndOne and give them your administrator password
and ask them to log on locally and open the ports again?

alphanordix@yahoo.co.uk (James) wrote in message news:<3c90f2ea.0311270413.1997190c@posting.google. com>...

Thanks to those that replied. I managed to sort it, and for the sake
of helping others in the future, here's what I did:

(btw: OneandOne couldn't access the server either, these are rack
mounted servers and they can only re-image using a CD or access
remotely using Remote Desktop. What they did for me, was install a
linux recovery boot thingy).

I installed putty.exe and logged into the linux recovery boot as the
root.

I entered:

mkdir /mnt/win (to create a folder)
mount -t ntfs /dev/hda1 /mnt/win (to mount the windows drive E)
cd /mnt/win (to change into the mounted folder)

I now could see my files on the windows partition, using ls -l

I installed an FTP server at home.

I connected to the FTP server from the remote machine.

I used FTP commands to transfer files from the remote windows drive to
my home computer.

All done, and a heart attack avoided! Tomorrow I will ask oneandone
to re-image the server so I have a fresh copy of windows back, and I
can then re-upload my backed up files.

- James

alphanordix@yahoo.co.uk (James) writes:

Glad to hear you solved your problem, but
here's some UNIX advice.

Show some class and call those things you make with mkdir
"directories". Folders is a term Microsoft invented because
of the "awe" that they feel for their customers.

Alan Connor wrote:


< snip >

You are wrong. And no correcting will be forthcoming, since you will not
understand/read it
--
The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says:
Support your right to bare arms!
*

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:35:36 -0500, Dan Espen <dane@mk.telcordia.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
And "folders" aren't the same thing as "directories" at all, in my
understanding.

They are not true directories at all, but the names of files that have
a lot of files concatenated in them, like mboxes, with a list of the files
at the top..

Please correct me if I am wrong.

AC

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:58:54 +0000, Alan Connor wrote:

Consider yourself corrected. "Folders" in DOS/Windows are exactly the
same thing as "directories" in Unix-like systems: a set of pointers to
file locations.

Some versions of Windows (and some third-party utilities for the other
versions) shadow the filesystem so that ZIP files behave like folders
(e.g. you can 'cd' into them, 'copy'/'move'/'del' the files within
them). Also, drives compressed with DriveSpace (formerly DoubleSpace)
involve files lumped together (to squeeze out the wasted space that
occurs when you store a five-byte file in a 4K disk block), though this
is less common in the current age of dirt-cheap hard drives.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:58:54 GMT, Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:

you only have to check the visual moniker to see that m$
coined the term folder to be synonymous with directory.

.... well, a directory is just a special file itself, which contains
a list of files. mainly used for organizational purposes
..
--
/// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
\\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
panic: can't find /

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:35:36 -0500, Dan Espen
<dane@mk.telcordia.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
Microsoft didn't invent the term "folders", it's just another thing they
copied from Apple (does anybody know what Xerox called them? Xposted
and followup-to alt.folklore.computers).

--
Thanks to Nigeria, any email with the word "urgent" in the subject
or address will be deleted.

mjt <mjtobler@removethis_consultant.com> writes:

It was used by Apple and Digital Research GEM years before MS thought
of using it.

For a strict GUI environment "folder" makes sense (it's a thing you
put pieces of paper in), whereas "directory" implies a list like the
phone book, Yellow Pages, etc. The metaphor falls over when you put
folders /inside/ other folders, since in real life there is a limit to
how much you can stuff inside a piece of folded cardboard.

OTOH, in real life, I would use the terms "folder" and "file"
interchangeably; the pieces of paper you put in them aren't files, they
are subdivisions of the file e.g. individual pieces of correspondence,
or records etc. But "file" is so established as a computing term,
that term must have stuck.


--
Roger Leigh

Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:35:36 +0000, Dan Espen wrote:

Actually, that came from Apple, which started calling directories
"folders" well before MS did. Why, I*have no idea.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is
_`\(,_ | not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
(_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

David L. Johnson writes:
"Desktop metaphor", remember? They assumed that their customers were too
stupid to deal with a concept as abstract as that of a directory so they
called them "folders" in analogy to the familiar yellow manila folders
common in offices.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:18:48 -0600, John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:

.... cripes, this all reminds me of the first office,
integrated apps, such as 'lotus symphony' and, what was
the one from ashton-tate?? (no, not dbase) 'framework'
or something like that?
..
--
/// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
\\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!

John> David L. Johnson writes:
John> "Desktop metaphor", remember?

Bad metaphor: when do/can/would you put a real folder into another
into another?

And if a directory would be a folder, why don't they call a drive a
"cabinet"? And why still "file", not just "piles of papers"?


John> They assumed that their customers were too stupid to deal
John> with a concept as abstract as that of a directory so they
John> called them "folders" in analogy to the familiar yellow
John> manila folders common in offices.

Is that why the UI's are getting more and more idiot-friendly?



--
Lee Sau Dan �守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)

E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee

Roger> For a strict GUI environment "folder" makes sense

I don't think so.


Roger> (it's a thing you put pieces of paper in),

So, why don't they also call files "paper"? Why isn't a disk drive
called a "cabinet"? And when do you put real-world folders into
folders into folders?

I believe a half-baked cake is not better than no cakes at all.


Roger> whereas "directory" implies a list like the phone book,
Roger> Yellow Pages, etc.

It is a list: a list of files and other directories. Of course,
normal lists won't "contain" other lists, only references to them.


Roger> The metaphor falls over when you put folders /inside/ other
Roger> folders, since in real life there is a limit to how much
Roger> you can stuff inside a piece of folded cardboard.

When the metaphor breaks, doesn't it cause more confusions than not?

A few years ago, I read a web page about how bad the "trash can"
metaphor is on the Apple desktop, when a SINGLE trash can is actually
implemented as SEPARATE hidden directories on different drives. Many
users are confused when they tried to free up some space on their
floppies by moving the files in the floppy into the trash can. They
didn't know that the disk space occupied was not reclaimed until they
empty the trash can, which *apparently* isn't a part of the diskette
icon, nor anything inside it. Bad metaphor. More confusions. It's
better to learn a new but correct concept.


Roger> OTOH, in real life, I would use the terms "folder" and
Roger> "file" interchangeably; the pieces of paper you put in them
Roger> aren't files, they are subdivisions of the file
Roger> e.g. individual pieces of correspondence, or records etc.

Yeah. So, the metaphor "folder" is too simplistic. Knowing that a
computer file isn't like physical files (i.e. folders), I can't accept
the "justifications" for calling directories "folders".


Roger> But "file" is so established as a computing term, that term
Roger> must have stuck.

So is "directory".



--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm-(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)

E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee