On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 08:17 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 09 March 2007, Anne Wilson wrote: > >On Thursday 08 March 2007, Craig White wrote: > >> > I never got to the bottom of this, but I had similar problems and > >> > this cured it. I thought that if Ruben actually found that this > >> > looser permission made a difference, it might provide the missing > >> > link so that someone could explain what was wrong and why this > >> > worked. > >> > >> ---- > >> actually no - 'security = share' is for all purposes abandoned and > >> would be removed except for some reluctance to eliminate backwards > >> compatibility (so says Jerry Carter - search samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> archives for this). > > > >Interesting. I hadn't seen that. > > Neither had I, and if it goes away, I'm not sure I'll be able to recover > since share is the only model that while throwing an occasional warning > in the logs, does work between the many disparate versions of samba or > cifs extant in my own local network. ---- 'security = share' is the functional equivalent of Windows 95/98 which is basically dead as is Windows 95/98. Support for 'security = share' was included in the original release of Samba 3.0 and I can assure you that they regret it and simply don't remove it at this point because of backwards compatibility and it won't be available in Samba 4. You really shouldn't be using samba/cifs sharing on your LAN since you have all Linux systems but you get away with it because you always run as root and it's clear that your methodology is to remove all security restrictions that are in your way. ---- > > If it does go away, then I feel its incumbent on the folks removing it to > write docs adequate for old farts like me to understand exactly how we go > about making these other security models function. ---- I suppose that if you think that the two major documentation projects for samba are not adequate (The Official How-To and By Example), there is no documentation that will make you happy. They are without doubt the best open source official documentation ever produced - and I suspect that you are just demonstrating a proclivity to complain. ---- > >> When samba 3.0.0 was released, it was immediately evident that though > >> many of the same configuration options were there, it was an entirely > >> new samba...winbindd, active directory, kerberos, dfs, groups, etc. > >> The information is there for those interest in investing the energy to > >> learn it and I know that the samba official documentation is the best > >> documentation open source offers. > > mmm, is that a separate rpm to install? ---- the man page for smb.conf is very complete/comprehensive and installed with samba package. ---- > > > >> (Official Samba 3.0 HowTo and By Example) - both available at > >> http://www.samba.org/samba/docs in html or pdf form or available in > >> dead tree form from most any bookseller. > > I cannot find the pdf version on that site, only the html, in 100+ > separate pages. To dl and dead tree that would be a rather herculean > task I think I'll pass on. ---- perhaps if you open your eyes, you will see the section called 'Samba Books' smack dab in the middle of the link above which clearly lists PDF and HTML formats for both 'Samba3 HowTo' and 'By Example'. I don't know what more to say about this but the different formats are there, clear as day for anyone that cares to look for them. Perhaps you need to attend to a cranial-rectum insertion condition. ---- > > I take it back, its buried, along with a bunch of other, probably relevant > stuff, in a 13 megabyte snapshot.bz2. Unpacking that should > be 'interesting'.. ---- what? See above. Craig
