On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 19:20 +0200, Massimo Maiurana wrote: > Craig White, il 25/08/2008 16:44, scrisse: > > >> also, shouldn't the domain field reflect the workgroup name, i.e. > >> GRECOELEVATORI? and if so, how can I edit it? > > ---- > > yes, the 'workgroup' name in smb.conf should be the DOMAIN for all users > > so there's a problem there to be sure. At this point, I would delete the > > user and add the user back in. > > > > smbpasswd -x barbara > > smbpasswd -a barbara > > I did it, but nothing had changed. > however maybe domain and workgroup are not the same thing, because > also on my home pc (which runs a samba server) domain is set to the > name of the host. ---- in theory, a workgroup and domain are the same thing with the exception that a domain implies more resources. On Samba, you merely set the workgroup name. On Windows, you can choose to join a computer to the domain (Win2K, WinXP Prof, WinVista Prof) or simply set the same workgroup name ---- > > > Just out of curiosity... > > > > what do you get from > > net getlocalsid > > net getdomainsid > > > > (hopefully S-1-5-21-4006416855-825432111-2697360864) > > it is so, but "net getdomainsid" says "could not get domain SID". > > > let's try this first... > > > > service nmb stop > > service smb stop > > rm /var/lib/samba/wins* > > service nmb start > > service smb start > > > > then if needed, delete the smbuser barbara and re-add barbara and check > > still nothing :( > I assumed with /var/lib/samba/wins* you did mean actually > /var/lib/samba/winbindd_privileged, because /var/lib/samba/wins* > doesn't match nothing. > > > I think that if you want to allow 'guest' you have to 'map' the 'Bad > > User' guest to an account and you will also have to add in Ufficio > > share... > > guest ok = yes > > not sure I understand you correctly. > the public share has already "public=yes", which should be the same > as "guest ok=yes". > I added "guest account=ftp" in smb.conf and did "smbpasswd -a ftp" > without supplying a password, but still nothing. ---- I think this step was unnecessary... /etc/samba/smbusers maps 'nobody' user for you ---- > > I even tried with secutity share, and this way I'm able to access > the share, but only with barbara's password. > if I try to access without a password it says "server not using user > level security and no password supplied". > neither with security share I'm able to access the share from the > win98 machine; it says (translated from italian, the english text > could be different) "unable to access \\BARBARA\Ufficio. unable to > find share name". odd, given that I access to it locally with > "smbclient //BARBARA/Ufficio". > I can't even see win98's share from fedora, nor I can mount it with > "mount -t cifs //greco/Ufficio2 /mnt/win98"; it says "mount error > 112 = Host is down", but the share name is indeed //greco/Ufficio2, > and "smbclient -L greco" confirms it. ---- It would be easier if you understood the differences between security = user and security = share security = user is the default and typically recommended method. This simulates the type of networking since the release of WinNT4 and a user need only connect to the server in one instance (user/password) and it connects to all resources from that server. If the user logs in to his Windows computer with the same user/password combination, then that should automatically be passed to the Samba server without any need for user entry. security = share emulates the type of file sharing that was typical of Windows 95 & Windows 98 where each share requires login with a user name and password each time. Security = share has languished with little attention since it is rarely used and probably will be phased out before too long. I'll address the smbfs/cifs issue as a reply to your other e-mail. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
