I hate linux more than the last guy who posted

UniqueID

UniqueID

UniqueID

Associate
Joined
31 Aug 2006
Posts
225
When man first made the wheel, he never thought thousands of years later,
he'd be doing it again.

all i need to do is create two samba shares, just two with some kind of domain user restrictions so i can use them for storing files, but all the ownership is messed up and i've got serveral shares now activated that i can't access. I'm not really a linux newbie, but its just times like this that makes me wish i had a couple of pounds spare so bill gates can come along and wave his magic wand. wait i think i said that wrong :eek:

i wish the darn connections on windows (not server) shares was more than 10, then i could have got out of this hours ago.

now i have to read war and peace on samba.
anyone else got that 'kill the linux penguin' dartpad on their wall today? :D
 
Are you file system permissions open enough to allow a user to write to the folder? Editing permissions in smb.conf is one thing, but you'll have to make sure they tie up.

chmod 777 the folder you want to right to test it (make sure you put it back to what it was previously for security).
 
have u added a user to samba?

are u trying to go login from vista? if yes, see this link:

http://www.builderau.com.au/blogs/codemonkeybusiness/viewblogpost.htm?p=339270746

after all the steps above, you should have summit like this at the bottom in your smb.conf

Code: 
[TV]
path= /mnt/storage1/TV/
browseable = yes
comment = TV
writable = yes
public = yes
guest ok = yes
create mask = 0777
directory mask = 0777
 
But he wants to manage the permissions not let everyone access them ala public and guest. The confusing thing is the differing auth methods and which one applies to what.

You have old unix file level permissions. (drwxrwxrwx)
You have Extended ACLs.
You can have users on the server.
You can add users to a samba password file.
You can auth users using an external domain controller. (NT based auth)

Some of this rarely applies, but sometimes all of it does. It is further compounded by bugs and incompatibilities between platforms and samba revisions. If there was a central control panel (that works) to sort this out it would be ideal.
 
Last edited:
How could you not find this?
20pzrzr.png


Its not hard to find apps on Ubuntu.
Don't hate it, learn to use it.
 
UniqueID said:
i wish the darn connections on windows (not server) shares was more than 10, then i could have got out of this hours ago.
Click to expand...

You can set the number of allowable connections to a SMB share to anything you want in Windows though - so whats the problem there?

I agree with you that Samba is pain in the proverbiales. Had a lot of issues with it recently ending up going back to using Windows XP x64... When it works Samba is great. But it's very hard to debug problems in my experience (both on Windows and Linux). Can't help but think an FTP server would be a lot easier to administer :D


Bob
 
UniqueID said:
When man first made the wheel, he never thought thousands of years later,
he'd be doing it again.

all i need to do is create two samba shares, just two with some kind of domain user restrictions so i can use them for storing files, but all the ownership is messed up and i've got serveral shares now activated that i can't access. I'm not really a linux newbie, but its just times like this that makes me wish i had a couple of pounds spare so bill gates can come along and wave his magic wand. wait i think i said that wrong :eek:

i wish the darn connections on windows (not server) shares was more than 10, then i could have got out of this hours ago.

now i have to read war and peace on samba.
anyone else got that 'kill the linux penguin' dartpad on their wall today? :D
Click to expand...

Linux is for competent computer users really...;)
 
I don't hate linux - far from it, so I'm probably posting in the wrong thread!

@ OP. Basically, samba is a reverse engineered implementation of the Microsoft SMB / CIFS protocols which sits on top of an OS that doesn't work in the same way as Windows: of course there are going to be caveats with how it is configured. That aside, I feel your pain, as it really is so much easier to do what you want to do on the native OS.

Bob Wya Jnr said:
You can set the number of allowable connections to a SMB share to anything you want in Windows though - so whats the problem there?
Click to expand...

XP allows 10 concurrent tcp connections, S2K3 allows 50, I think. You can easily modify this, but it is a bit of a hack and involves a hex editor and modifying tcpip.sys.

ukez said:
Linux is for competent computer users really...;)
Click to expand...

You would have to define what a "competent user" is for that to have any meaning. I suspect that my idea of a competent user may be significantly different from yours: e.g. my girlfriend has recently migrated from XP to ubuntu, has no idea how things work, just that it does what she wants it to. If it doesn't, then she asks me to make it so. I would call her a competent user (note the use of the word user, not admin).

DunK1 said:
Yeah because everyone uses Ubuntu.
Click to expand...

Code: 
walls@gentoo ~ $ emerge --search samba | grep config
*  app-admin/system-config-samba [ Masked ]
      Description:   Samba server configuration tool

You don't have to be using Ubuntu :p

Dj_Jestar said:
Just like everyone uses windows when they want something done, and are bored having a toy with Ubuntu. :p
Click to expand...

Also, I don't run to Windows when I'm "bored of toying" with linux: I have two Arch boxes (servers), one Sabayon box (main desktop), one gentoo box (play machine), one kubuntu box (laptop), one XP machine and one Server 2003. The only reason I have the XP machine (which is virtual) is for work and for iTunes (which, btw - I despise, but it's a necessary evil for my phone). Incidentally - the reason I chose kubuntu for my laptop is because I want everything to "just work all the time" on that one.

I suspect that the reason that you're having so much trouble with linux is because your head is still in "windows compatability mode" :p


p.s. I started computing on a Windows machine.
 
Tried sharing between different versions of Windows? They don't work either.

Although I will freely admit that samba is the worst file server and client EVER!!

I will one day write a windows share client/server for linux, and it will work from the same exact model as on Windows. I promise I will not try to make it better.
 
Install webmin (apt-get install webmin) on ubuntu, configure Samba through Webmin (http://localip:10000). Once you have added your shares, check the permissions on the shares, etc for the folders they are mapped to.

Add the users on the server to the samba user list by using "smbpasswd -a SMN" where SMN is the username on the Linux server you wish to logon as, i.e. "root". Other than that i'm racking my brain...
 
.walls said:
I don't hate linux - far from it, so I'm probably posting in the wrong thread!

@ OP. Basically, samba is a reverse engineered implementation of the Microsoft SMB / CIFS protocols which sits on top of an OS that doesn't work in the same way as Windows: of course there are going to be caveats with how it is configured. That aside, I feel your pain, as it really is so much easier to do what you want to do on the native OS.



XP allows 10 concurrent tcp connections, S2K3 allows 50, I think. You can easily modify this, but it is a bit of a hack and involves a hex editor and modifying tcpip.sys.



You would have to define what a "competent user" is for that to have any meaning. I suspect that my idea of a competent user may be significantly different from yours: e.g. my girlfriend has recently migrated from XP to ubuntu, has no idea how things work, just that it does what she wants it to. If it doesn't, then she asks me to make it so. I would call her a competent user (note the use of the word user, not admin).



Code: 
walls@gentoo ~ $ emerge --search samba | grep config
*  app-admin/system-config-samba [ Masked ]
      Description:   Samba server configuration tool

You don't have to be using Ubuntu :p



Also, I don't run to Windows when I'm "bored of toying" with linux: I have two Arch boxes (servers), one Sabayon box (main desktop), one gentoo box (play machine), one kubuntu box (laptop), one XP machine and one Server 2003. The only reason I have the XP machine (which is virtual) is for work and for iTunes (which, btw - I despise, but it's a necessary evil for my phone). Incidentally - the reason I chose kubuntu for my laptop is because I want everything to "just work all the time" on that one.

I suspect that the reason that you're having so much trouble with linux is because your head is still in "windows compatability mode" :p


p.s. I started computing on a Windows machine.
Click to expand...
Woooosh! :p

It was a sarcastic joke, dude. :)
 
When you buy a copy of windows do you actually own it? Bet they got something in the license agreement somewhere that no one actually reads :p
 
No, you don't. You own a user license agreement. Ergo, you pay for the permission to use it, you never actually own it. Same goes for all software.. it's impossible to actually "own" software when buying an off the shelf software product.
 
Pedants :P And what is this Re: £45 for W7 Premium? This related to the Vista -> w7 upgrade path?
 
It's a very important issue that has bitten people in the past. Some think that because they have bought a copy of something they are allowed to modify its code base and/or redistribute it.. they are not permitted to do either. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom