indrek siitan
1999-Jun-04 18:28 UTC
"because you dance to disco and you don't like rock" [Win2000 vs Samba/Linux]
Hey, so i finally got it working thanks to your list (found the right place for EnablePlainTextPassword here, the existing 3-4 matches in the default registry don't seem to do a thing). It was all brilliant. I got connected to all my 4 samba servers. I was happy... 'til the next boot (you know, during installation of system, boots happen). Now it connects to 3 sambas (1 on FreeBSD, 1 on HP-UX, 1 on SCO). To the linux - nope. :( it looks just like it was with encrypted passwords (incorrect password or unknown username for \\xx\x). myhost.log contains: --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- [1999/06/04 21:24:00, 3] smbd/service.c:make_connection(488) hydra (194.204.12.100) connect to service IPC$ as user nobody (uid=65534, gid=65534) (pid 17127) [1999/06/04 21:24:00, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_tcon_and_X(340) tconX service=ipc$ user=nobody [1999/06/04 21:24:00, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(565) Transaction 6 of length 138 [1999/06/04 21:24:00, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(402) switch message SMBsesssetupX (pid 17127) [1999/06/04 21:24:00, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_sesssetup_and_X(675) Domain=[ARIPAEV] NativeOS=[Windows NT 2031] NativeLanMan=[Windows NT 5.0] [1999/06/04 21:24:00, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_sesssetup_and_X(679) sesssetupX:name=[TFR] [1999/06/04 21:24:00, 3] smbd/error.c:error_packet(138) error packet at line 781 cmd=115 (SMBsesssetupX) eclass=2 ecode=2 [1999/06/04 21:24:00, 3] smbd/error.c:error_packet(143) error string = No such file or directory [1999/06/04 21:24:53, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(565) Transaction 7 of length 39 [1999/06/04 21:24:53, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(402) switch message SMBtdis (pid 17127) [1999/06/04 21:24:53, 3] smbd/service.c:close_cnum(514) hydra (194.204.12.100) closed connection to service IPC$ --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- samba version is 2.0.2 (the same as on 3 remaining servers). any hints? Rgds, Tfr --==< tfr@cafe.ee >==< http://tfr.cafe.ee/ >==< +372-50-17621 >==--
On 5 Jun 99, craig heading <tasdevil@winsoft.net.au> had questions about Password problem with Win95 not remembering: [snip]> Anyone know why this is happening and how to rectify it? its driving me > crazy entering 3 passwords every time i turn the computer on (1 x novell > and 2 samba shares).Well, the obvious answer is that windoze is brain-dead. Seriously, it tends to get "confused" with multiple protocols and a single adapter. It also gets confused with a single protocol and multiple adapters (though not as much). These problems are due to the way things are defined in the registry (and other windoze design flaws) and cannot be changed. Your setup (with multiple protocols *and* multiple adapters) is really pushing the envelope. I would normally say get rid of NetBlooie and use TCP/IP, but in your case that might make things worse... Have you applied the windoze system updates? You could also try removing the network components (except the network adapters) and re-installing them. If that doesn't help, I would make the passwords the same and live with it. Not being very helpful today, Steve ************************************************ Steve Arnold CLE (Certifiable Linux Evangelist) http://www.rain.org/~sarnold
On 5 Jun 99, Nico De Ranter <nico@sonycom.com> had questions about samba and dual homed machines:> I'm trying to install an ATM network that will contain my > NT clients and UNIX servers. When I do tests with FTP between > NT and UNIX over ATM the results show a big improvement. However, > once I start using samba performance goes down like a rock. > It turns out that when using samba. The traffic from NT to > UNIX will go over ATM, while the traffic from UNIX to NT still > goes over Ethernet. No matter what I do I can't convince samba > to use ATM.I assume you specified the ATM interface in smb.conf? With two (or more) ethernet interfaces, samba binds to the first one (ie, eth0) without any interface parameter in the smb.conf file. If you want samba to see more than one, you must specify them explicitly. If that doesn't work, is there some way to get the ATM interface to look like eth0? That's all I could think of - Steve *********************************************************** Steve Arnold sarnold@earthling.net The salesman said "This machine requires Windows 95, NT, or better." The only thing I could think of was Linux.
On 5 Jun 99, RVE@mn-services.nl had questions about Question about smbsh / smbfs / smbmount:> Now my question. We also want to work the other way around. So > mounting a Windows NT share as an Unix (AIX) filesystem. I found > it very hard on finding information on that subject. So can you > tell me what the best option is (smbsh, smbfs or smbmount) ? > > We have now a workaround using SMBCLIENT. The disadvantage of > this is that it isn't a permanent situation such as a filesystem. > Also somewhere you must hardcode the NT Username and Password. > Just to remind you we are running on AIX 4.2.I'm not sure about smbfs support for AIX (I'm a linux guy). With linux, smbfs is just another filesystem supported by the kernel. smbclient and smbmount are inter-related, and both rely on the smbfs support in the kernel. With AIX, it must be kluged on there somehow. I think your best bet would be smbsh, but I haven't used it yet (only read posts by others who have). If it's an IBM PowerPC machine, is there a chance the PPC version of linux would run on it? Just a thought... Steve ************************************************************* Steve Arnold http://www.rain.org/~sarnold Conserving bandwidth (and belly-button lint...)
On 5 Jun 99, Peter Nikolic <peten@onet.co.uk> had questions about Samba configs:> Hi Name is PeteHowdy.> Now i can see plenty of stuff about using samba to connect to a > win95 box but i need to setup athe Linux box to File Serve to 2 > Win98 boxes , and i can not find a defiative answer to things > like do i need to run Tcp/Ip on the 98 boxes or Netbui or is the > choice mine ..#NetBlooie is a worthless piece of crap IMHO (and way too chatty on the network). Just install TCP/IP and make sure the little box is checked for NetBIOS over TCP/IP. Also, you will need to add the PlainTextPassword reg hack to the win98 clients (unless you run samba with encrypted passwords). If you're new to linux and/or networking stuff, then I'd suggest starting without encryption, then adding it later. Also, if your win98 NetBIOS (host) names are different than the samba username logging in from that station, then you'll need to map the names in the smbusers file. I'd also suggest letting samba be your master browser and WINS server (forget about lmhosts files), and set this: name resolve order = WINS bcast You can use lmhosts if you wish (instead of WINS) but don't let samba use DNS to resolve names (unless you *really* know DNS/Bind). Steve ************************************************************* Steve Arnold sarnold@earthling.net http://www.rain.org/~sarnold This message composed of 100% recycled electrons. You should also recycle yourself. Become an organ donor 8-)
On 5 Jun 99, "Timothy Gebhart" <tbgebhar@tri-techceg.com> forwarded some crap about an email tax:> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 11:05:39 -0400 > From: "Timothy Gebhart" <tbgebhar@tri-techceg.com> > To: "Wallace Alderman (E-mail)" <wallace@tri-techceg.com>, "Mike Ash > (E-mail)" <LNUSDCW.SZ24G2@gmeds.com>, "Mike Barnhart (E-mail)" > <id@imperium.net>, > Subject: E-mail Postage Taxes ?[snip] Thanks for forwarding the hoax material. The same theing hit Canada last month, only the lawyer was in Toronto instead of Virginia. You might want to check it out first next time (besides, the samba list is not the right place anyway). Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. In other words, NO SPAM!!!
On 5 Jun 99, pchapman@technical-concepts.co.uk had questions about newbie help: [snip]> I have managed to sucessfully untar the files but I am having > difficulty compiling the files. I am using SCO Unix and when I > type in the ./configure command in the source directory (as per > the UNIX INSTALL instructions) I get an error message saying > './configure:cant execute'Do you have the right stuff installed? (eg, gcc, autoconf, make, etc) You can always edit the makefile by hand; there used to be clearly commented sections for samba options and different OS configurations. Try it and see... Steve ************************************************************* Steve Arnold http://www.rain.org/~sarnold Things go better with Linux and King Crimson.
On 5 Jun 99, "Frank R. Brown" <list.Frank@MailAndNews.com> had questions about mksmbpasswd.sh:> I see that mksmbpasswd.sh (plus a little editing) would > be a good way to set up users with "NO PASSWORD" > in bulk. > > But suppose I don't want the risk of the "NO PASSWORD" > approach. Now somebody with root access must run > smbpasswd for each user they want to activate. But can't > I just do this anyway (with the -a 'add user' option), without > ever having run mksmbpasswd.sh? > > Please clue me in if I'm missing something here.Here's the way I understand it: running samba without encrypted passwords uses the /etc/passwd (or /etc/shadow). Running samba with encrypted passwords uses /etc/smbpasswd instead (due to the requirement for M$ hashed passwords). Running the above shell script creates the /etc/smbpasswd file (ie, the same info that's contained in /etc/passwd) without any passwords in it (only XXXXX). At this point, you can add real passwords to /etc/smbpasswd manually using (what else) smbpasswd. Or you can set: unix passwd sync = yes and use the standard passwd command instead. Or you can run: update encrypted = yes encrypted = no and let each user login normally. Once each user's password has been added to /etc/smbpasswd you switch to update encrypted = no encrypted = yes and there you go. I must be on a roll tonight (and the SciFi channel shows are re- runs). Steve ************************************************ Steve Arnold CLE (Certifiable Linux Evangelist) http://www.rain.org/~sarnold
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 sarnold@coyote.rain.org wrote:> [snip] > > The solution I thought of was installing PAM_NTdom, to let linux > > authenticate users via and PDC as wel. That way all of my users > > are registered on the PDC. Whenever someone goes to the Linux > > machine (either through samba, or direct) the machine asks the > > PDC. But it didn't work, because I think that SuSE does not > > support PAM modules? Does anyone know if that is correct? Or can > > I install that?> PAM should already be installed on *any* linux distribution (it's > standard on linux and solaris). I've never heard of PAM_NTdom, but > you can find PAM docs on the Sun support site, as well as in your > linux /usr/doc tree.This is by no means the case. PAM is originally the work of Sun Microsystems, and there is an XSSO spec; it was only a couple of years ago that RedHat became the first Linux distro to support it by means of the Linux-PAM package. Since then, several other distros have moved toward accepting it, but I don't know that any of them recommend, let alone enforce, the use of PAM on their systems. The way to see if you have PAM on your Linux system is to simply run '/sbin/ldconfig -p|grep pam'... if you see libpam, it's there, if not, it isn't. If it isn't there, you can install it, but you would also have to recompile all the applications you want to make use of it. If this is really a feature you require, in the short term I'm afraid switching to RedHat would probably be an easier solution than trying to graft PAM on to a distro that doesn't support it. -Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
smbfs/smbmount is as far as I know only available for Linux smbsh proberly don't give you all the functionality you need, it gives you the ability to access the files on the NT when running under this shell ( ls and cp; but you cannot cd to the directories ) Another productthat should give you the required functionality is Sharity. Sharity is however not freeware; but a free demoversion exists, that is restricted to 3 directory levels. see: http://www.obdev.at/Products/Sharity.html> > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:04:29 +0200 > From: RVE@mn-services.nl > To: samba@anu.edu.au > Subject: Question about smbsh / smbfs / smbmount > Message-ID: <s74be413.010@mailgate.mn-services.nl> > > Hello Everyone, > > I hope that there is someone who can help me. > > At work we are using Samba for over a year now. > Sharing Unix filesystems as a NT network drive is very useful > for us. > > Now my question. > We also want to work the other way around. > So mounting a Windows NT share as an Unix (AIX) filesystem. > I found it very hard on finding information on that subject. > So can you tell me what the best option is > (smbsh, smbfs or smbmount) ? > > We have now a workaround using SMBCLIENT. > The disadvantage of this is that it isn't a permanent situation > such as a filesystem. Also somewhere you must hardcode the NT > Username and Password. Just to remind you we are running on AIX > 4.2. > > Greetings, > > Raymond Vermeer > Mn Services > The Netherlands > email rve@mn-services.nl > > -------------------------------- Regards Per \|/ (o *) ---------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)- | Per Kofod / Systems Engineer Email: per@sgi.com | | Silicon Graphics Denmark Fax: (+45) 43270481 O | Stationsparken 25 Phone: (+45) 43438600 O | 2600 Glostrup VNET 540-0431 O | DENMARK URL: http://www.sgi.com o ------------------------------------------------------------- * Gravity never loses! The best you can hope for is a draw! *