On 09/01/2008 12:52 AM, Ned Slider wrote: > Scott Robbins wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Ned Slider wrote: >>> >>> As a thought - I'm wondering if the topic needs slitting up into >>> multiple sections/pages? Maybe something like: >>> >>> An introduction/overview to samba (users, file permissions etc) >>> Basic samba setup with example (security=share) >>> Group shares with examples (security=user) >>> Printing >>> AD integration >>> etc ... >> >> That seems to me to be the best way. > > When I was reading through some documentation a few weeks ago, > specifically the "Samba by Example" book: > > http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-Guide/ > > I was surprised that the "more basic" examples were commonly using > security = share. I thought I had read somewhere in the past that > security = share was either deprecated or at least not recommended > hence my surprise at seeing it being used in the official > documentation. Personally I've always used user level security but > share level would certainly ease a few potential headaches for new > users requiring a "quick and dirty" share. > > Just so we're all on the same page, does anyone know (or have any > views) what the current thinking is on this? I am using security=share whenever I am not interested in authentication (public shares that is). The not so famous " map to guest = Bad User " was a much bigger headache.
