samba - Feb 1999 - Win95 won't work with Samba 2.0.2

Hmmm...  I've sent a couple of questions to the list recently, with 
no responses.  Are my messages getting out?


Since upgrading to 2.0.2, our Win95 boxes are having problems 
accessing shares.  WinNT works perfectly.  Win95 worked fine 
with 1.whatever, but now it can only see files that are actually in 
the share directory.  It can see subdirectories of the share, but 
they appear as empty directories.

Has anyone else seen this?  Is anyone using 2.0.2 successfully 
with Win95?  Should I just bag it and go back to the old version?

Thanks,
Dave


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Walton                                                           
Webmaster, Postmaster                                           Emusic
walton@emusic.com                                http://www.emusic.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Walton:
> Hmmm...  I've sent a couple of questions to the list recently, with 
> no responses.  Are my messages getting out?
> 
> 
> Since upgrading to 2.0.2, our Win95 boxes are having problems 
> accessing shares.  WinNT works perfectly.  Win95 worked fine 
I installed also samba 2.0.2, and noticed that I need set

	security = share

so that Windows 95 apple to access printers as guest user.
(No idea was that required for Windows NT clients.)

Without that pasword was asked.

/ Kari Hurtta

On 26 Feb 99, at 20:29, hurtta+z1@ozone.fmi.fi wrote:
> Dave Walton:
> > 
> > Since upgrading to 2.0.2, our Win95 boxes are having problems 
> > accessing shares.  WinNT works perfectly.  Win95 worked fine 
> 
> I installed also samba 2.0.2, and noticed that I need set
> 
> 	security = share
> 
> so that Windows 95 apple to access printers as guest user.
> (No idea was that required for Windows NT clients.)
> 
> Without that pasword was asked.
I'm afraid that's not it.  We are using security = server, and it was 
working fine with samba 1.9.18p7.  It's not that it asks for 
passwords, but rather directories appear to be empty even though 
they are not.

Dave


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Walton                                                           
Webmaster, Postmaster                                           Emusic
walton@emusic.com                                http://www.emusic.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 29 Apr 99, Slamaj Zelko had questions about Re: Win95 won't work 
with Samba 2.0.2:  
> How did you manage it to access your shares?
What's your config look like?  The samba share settings work as 
documented, but they will not override the underlying directory and 
file permissions.  Make sure you didn't create files/directories in 
the share while you were root.  RedHat uses a user-private-group 
scheme (see the redhat manual) so you can easily setup group shares 
(ie, where files by a specified group, etc).
> My situation: About 50 Win95 (Release a, b and c) in a Win95-Network, one
> Linux-box running RH5.2
> 
> I managed it to make public shares, but the user-specific shares are not
> accessible. Why this? Could you help me?
If you specify a valid users list, then only those users will see 
the shares in NetHood; the write list shares will be visible to 
all, but only the specified users will have write access, etc.  If 
your win9x machines have different names than their respective 
users, (ie, NetBIOS name foo, but the linux account name is bar) 
then you should map the names to each other in the /etc/smbusers 
file.

I found the linux/unix way of doing things conceptually much 
different than DOS/windoze (or the Mac for that matter) and it's 
taken years before some of it has started to sink in (I'll 
eventually learn *something* but only after repeated blows to the 
head ;)

But now I'm a total opensource convert (read: CLE - Certifiable 
Linux Evangelist).  Open standards and source codes are the *only* 
way to go if you care about performance, relaibility, flexibility, 
etc.  And who in their right mind would want to have their business 
or personal computing lives held hostage by greedy lying-ass 
vendors pushing over-priced cheesy bloated proprietary solutions 
and then charging more money for a few fixes (plus a bunch of new 
problems)?  It boggles the mind...

[soap-box mode off]

Sorry about that folks.  I just got back from giving a talk at a 
rocket propulsion conference and it must have gone pretty well 
because I'm obviously still in promiscuous mode as well.

Later, Steve


*************************************************************
Steve Arnold                     http://www.rain.org/~sarnold

   "A mime is a terrible thing to waste..."   Mel Brooks