On Tuesday 04 April 2006 21:11, Craig White wrote: > I surely did with my original post at 6:15 this morning. > Since your messages are labelled with my time-zone, I have to guess which message you refer to. > I don't mean to be argumentative but when the advice given is uncertain > and you don't have the man pages to guide you, it's probably better to > qualify the advice. > ---- Fair enough. > > > once again, you have given confusing if not inaccurate. If the user and > > > password and workgroup are the same, a Win98 and a Win2K connection to > > > a 'security = user' samba would be handled in the same manner so I fail > > > to see what you mean by 'all that has changed' > > > > Since I do not use 'security = user' that is irrelevant. > > ---- > you suggested that OP use 'security = user' so that makes it relevant in > my mind. My mistake - I shouldn't try to think this late at night. I do use 'security = user'. I do not use 'security = share', which is what was first mentioned. The point I was making was that although samba has not changed, the way it behaves at the windows end has changed. > > > One of the differences between 'security = user' and 'security = share' > > > is that a Windows client can access different shares with different > > > passwords in 'security = share' but not with 'security = user' > > > > The point I was making was that the user on a win98 box was often unaware > > that he was logging in. IIRC the norm was for the windows login details > > to be passed to samba for authentication, without the user necessarily > > being aware of it. > > > > This thread is not helping either of the original posters. Please give > > them the simplest instructions you can. > > ---- > I thought I did in my first reply to this thread > > 1 - clarified 'security = share' as opposed to 'security = shares' > 2 - referred to man page which described all the possible uses of user > settings for login/permissions control for a 'security = share' setting. > Well, only they can say whether they thought that that message gave them the information they need. Personally, I feel that giving 'all the possible uses' is less than helpful to someone coming fresh to a situation. That, to my mind, comes once you have the basics under control. One of the problems when you first start using samba is that there is just so much information, that finding the right bits for what you need feels overwhelming. I think it is better to start with a minimalistic version with help from wherever you can get it, then go and read all the rest so that you can tweak it. Anne
Attachment:
pgpEaCkFkIbb1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
