Thursday, September 4, 2008

Re: [BLUG] SUCCESS! Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark,

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 at 8:16pm, Mark Warner wrote:

> Shing-Shong Shei wrote:
> > > Windows machine would *not* connect by \\server\share name, but it did
> > > connect by \\lan_ip\share.
>
> Response inline...
>
> > Try this:
> >
> > 1) service smb stop
> > 2) rm /etc/samba/secrets.tdb
>
> I have an install of the Debian Lenny based MEPIS 8 beta here at home, and the
> above file doesn't appear to exist. (The machine I've been working on is the
> Etch based MEPIS 7.)

The secrets.tdb file may be stored in a different location. On my
gentoo system, this file is located at
/var/lib/samba/private/secrets.tdb

This file contains the SID and machine password for your server.

> > 3) find /var/cache/samba -type f | xargs rm
>
> Would you mind telling me what the above command is actually doing? Looking at
> the xargs man page, it appears that I'm removing something??? from
> /var/cache/samba???

This is removing all files from the /var/cache/samba directory and all
subdirectories underneath. From man smbd:

TDB FILES
Samba stores it's data in several TDB (Trivial Database) files,
usually located in /var/lib/samba.

(*) information persistent across restarts (but not necessarily
important to backup).

account_policy.tdb*
NT account policy settings such as pw expiration, etc...
...

Based on the directory name and its contents, removing all of the
files here isn't a big issue, as long as the smb service is stopped at
the time.

If you are curious as to the contents of any of these files, the
simplest way to review their contents is probably with the tdbdump
command, which is included with samba.

chris

- --
Chris Shelton
Indiana University - Financial Management Services
- -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIwI7zM5TknMKatUwRAu3SAJ9PJiNssApl8ux16dVqxTRtjAQcbwCfVVQO
yUsnaRB8C1EPlX2wOBd5/eY=
=sImo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BLUG] SUCCESS! Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

Shing-Shong Shei wrote:
>> Windows machine would *not* connect by \\server\share name, but it did
>> connect by \\lan_ip\share.

Response inline...

> Try this:
>
> 1) service smb stop
> 2) rm /etc/samba/secrets.tdb

I have an install of the Debian Lenny based MEPIS 8 beta here at home,
and the above file doesn't appear to exist. (The machine I've been
working on is the Etch based MEPIS 7.)

> 3) find /var/cache/samba -type f | xargs rm

Would you mind telling me what the above command is actually doing?
Looking at the xargs man page, it appears that I'm removing something???
from /var/cache/samba???

> 4) service smb start

Thanks for your interest. I appreciate learning opportunity.

(Everything's relative, that's for sure. In nearly every other circle,
I'm considered the "computer genius". This kind of experience keeps me
humble.)

--
Mark Warner
SimplyMEPIS Linux v6.5
Registered Linux User #415318

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] SUCCESS! Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

> Windows machine would *not* connect by \\server\share name, but it did
connect by \\lan_ip\share.

Try this:

1) service smb stop
2) rm /etc/samba/secrets.tdb
3) find /var/cache/samba -type f | xargs rm
4) service smb start

Good luck!

Shing-Shong


_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] SUCCESS! Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Mark Warner <markwarner1954@att.net> wrote:
> Well, at least I've got one of them connected and working.
>
> Added the [security = shared] parameter and [workgroup = WORKGROUP],
> reloaded smb.conf, then restarted the samba daemon.
>
> Windows machine would *not* connect by \\server\share name, but it did
> connect by \\lan_ip\share.

Sounds like a name resolution problem, now. DNS, WINS, or NetBIOS.

> Now all I need to do is get the owner out from behind his machine long
> enough to get him hooked up and this little adventure will be over with.
>
> Thanks to all for the pointers, handholding, and sympathy.

Hey, no problem. You done good!

> --
> Mark Warner
> SimplyMEPIS Linux v6.5
> Registered Linux User #415318

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] SUCCESS! Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

Simón Ruiz wrote:
> Steven Black wrote:
>> I noticed there didn't seem to be a "Workgroup" setting in the
>> samba.conf file, so Samba would appear to be using the default. (Though
>> I wasn't specifically looking to see if it was using a Windows Domain
>> Server, as I've no experience there. If you're using one, then you don't
>> have a workgroup anymore.)
>
> The "workgroup" option in Samba is still meaningful whether you're
> joined to a domain or not, as it determines the NetBIOS network
> browsing stuff.
>
> I think. ;-) Like I said, I've had enough headaches from Samba I
> refuse to claim I understand it, just that I've wrestled it into
> compliance once or twice.

Well, at least I've got one of them connected and working.

Added the [security = shared] parameter and [workgroup = WORKGROUP],
reloaded smb.conf, then restarted the samba daemon.

Windows machine would *not* connect by \\server\share name, but it did
connect by \\lan_ip\share.

Now all I need to do is get the owner out from behind his machine long
enough to get him hooked up and this little adventure will be over with.

Thanks to all for the pointers, handholding, and sympathy.

--
Mark Warner
SimplyMEPIS Linux v6.5
Registered Linux User #415318

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] android phones

On 9/4/08 3:10 PM, "Steven Black" <blacks@indiana.edu> wrote:
>> I heard that the first Android phone will be an HTC from T-Mobile [1]
>
> That's sad. T-mobile service in Bloomington is *extremely* spotty. My
> wife has a T-mobile pre-paid phone and she has more service problems
> than I do, and I have AT&T (which is spotty enough).

That's too bad. I've been carrying a Blackberry w/ service from T-Mobile
for a few years now. The BB will switch back and forth between T-Mobile and
AT&T towers wherever I go, depending on whichever is strongest (at no extra
charge, of course) -- it stays on AT&T most of the time.

On a somewhat related note, T-Mobile is cheaper and their customer service
is much, much better. They allow tethering as well, which I believe AT&T
prohibits.

--
Jeremy L. Gaddis
Network Administrator
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
812.330.6156 (w) 812.391.3971 (m)


_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] android phones

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Michael Schultheiss wrote:
> Ben Shewmaker wrote:
> > Does anybody know anything about Android phones?
>
> I heard that the first Android phone will be an HTC from T-Mobile [1]

That's sad. T-mobile service in Bloomington is *extremely* spotty. My
wife has a T-mobile pre-paid phone and she has more service problems
than I do, and I have AT&T (which is spotty enough).

Cheers,

--
Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E

Re: [BLUG] Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> wrote:
> I noticed there didn't seem to be a "Workgroup" setting in the
> samba.conf file, so Samba would appear to be using the default. (Though
> I wasn't specifically looking to see if it was using a Windows Domain
> Server, as I've no experience there. If you're using one, then you don't
> have a workgroup anymore.)

The "workgroup" option in Samba is still meaningful whether you're
joined to a domain or not, as it determines the NetBIOS network
browsing stuff.

I think. ;-) Like I said, I've had enough headaches from Samba I
refuse to claim I understand it, just that I've wrestled it into
compliance once or twice.

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> wrote:
> I noticed there didn't seem to be a "Workgroup" setting in the
> samba.conf file, so Samba would appear to be using the default. (Though
> I wasn't specifically looking to see if it was using a Windows Domain
> Server, as I've no experience there. If you're using one, then you don't
> have a workgroup anymore.)

The "workgroup" option in Samba is still meaningful whether you're
joined to a domain or not, as it determines the NetBIOS network
browsing stuff.

I think. ;-) Like I said, I've had enough headaches from Samba I
refuse to claim I understand it, just that I've wrestled it into
compliance once or twice.

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Mark Warner <markwarner1954@att.net> wrote:
> The server is definitely part of the WORKGROUP workgroup.
>
> Are you suggesting I add a 'workgroup = WORKGROUP' parameter or some such to
> smb.conf? Under [global], I presume?

Actually, if you're certain the server is definitely part of the
WORKGROUP workgroup, you should maybe double-check and see what
workgroup those XPp machines are a part of.

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

Steven Black wrote:
>
> Here's something you should check:
>
> Microsoft changed the default workgroup from "WORKGROUP" (which actually
> has a special meaning) to "MSHOME". Since it is the "Pro" editions that
> are not seeing the share, I would check that they are configured to use
> the same Workgroup that the other machines are configured to use.

I believe (BICBW) that the default for XP Pro is WORKGROUP, and the
Default for XP Home is MSHOME. I will certainly double check.

> I noticed there didn't seem to be a "Workgroup" setting in the
> samba.conf file, so Samba would appear to be using the default. (Though
> I wasn't specifically looking to see if it was using a Windows Domain
> Server, as I've no experience there. If you're using one, then you don't
> have a workgroup anymore.)

The server is definitely part of the WORKGROUP workgroup.

> Ideally, unless you're using a domain server, you want to have a
> specific known name for your Workgroup. Don't just use the default, as
> the default can be different depending on the OS.

Are you suggesting I add a 'workgroup = WORKGROUP' parameter or some
such to smb.conf? Under [global], I presume?

Thanks for your interest.

--
Mark Warner
SimplyMEPIS Linux v6.5
Registered Linux User #415318

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] android phones

Ben Shewmaker wrote:
> Does anybody know anything about Android phones?

I heard that the first Android phone will be an HTC from T-Mobile [1]

[1]
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Google-Android-to-Appear-First-on-TMobile-Then-The-World/
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] android phones

I too am interested in this, as well as the aforementioned OpenMoko phones.

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ben Shewmaker <ben@shewbox.org> wrote:
I know a month or so back there was a discussion on open mobile phones.  My LG phone's battery is just about shot (goes from fully charged to empty in no time flat), and I see buying a new battery would cost me $50.  My 2 year contract is up with Sprint so I'm looking at either new phone and/or carrier. 

Does anybody know anything about Android phones?  I'd love my next phone to be an open one and didn't know if there were any android phones in the wild yet.  All I can find is that Google's site says Q4 will see the first release of 1.0 android phones.  I can't really wait too long to get a new phone, but I also dont' wanna lock myself into a plan and then have some better options come out shortly thereafter.

thanks

Ben

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug


[BLUG] android phones

I know a month or so back there was a discussion on open mobile phones.  My LG phone's battery is just about shot (goes from fully charged to empty in no time flat), and I see buying a new battery would cost me $50.  My 2 year contract is up with Sprint so I'm looking at either new phone and/or carrier. 

Does anybody know anything about Android phones?  I'd love my next phone to be an open one and didn't know if there were any android phones in the wild yet.  All I can find is that Google's site says Q4 will see the first release of 1.0 android phones.  I can't really wait too long to get a new phone, but I also dont' wanna lock myself into a plan and then have some better options come out shortly thereafter.

thanks

Ben

Re: [BLUG] Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

Have the two problem XP machines ever been part of the IU ADS domain?

I recall there is a registry key that gets pushed when you join IU's
network that turns off old versions of NTLM authentication. This
could cause authentication problems with samba.

This is just a shot from memory so I'm not certain if it is relevant.

---
Andrew Poland <ajpoland@iupui.edu>
UITS Storage and Virtualization
Indiana University
(317) 274-0746

On Sep 4, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Black, Steven Wayne wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:56:02PM -0400, Simón Ruiz wrote:
>> P.S. The XP machines that do work, even if they log in automatically,
>> MUST have a username; do you know what that username is?
>
> Here's something you should check:
>
> Microsoft changed the default workgroup from "WORKGROUP" (which
> actually
> has a special meaning) to "MSHOME". Since it is the "Pro" editions
> that
> are not seeing the share, I would check that they are configured to
> use
> the same Workgroup that the other machines are configured to use.
>
> I noticed there didn't seem to be a "Workgroup" setting in the
> samba.conf file, so Samba would appear to be using the default.
> (Though
> I wasn't specifically looking to see if it was using a Windows Domain
> Server, as I've no experience there. If you're using one, then you
> don't
> have a workgroup anymore.)
>
> Ideally, unless you're using a domain server, you want to have a
> specific known name for your Workgroup. Don't just use the default, as
> the default can be different depending on the OS.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
> Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E
>
> <signature.asc><ATT00001.txt>


_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] Certain XP machines won't connect to Samba share

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:56:02PM -0400, Simón Ruiz wrote:
> P.S. The XP machines that do work, even if they log in automatically,
> MUST have a username; do you know what that username is?

Here's something you should check:

Microsoft changed the default workgroup from "WORKGROUP" (which actually
has a special meaning) to "MSHOME". Since it is the "Pro" editions that
are not seeing the share, I would check that they are configured to use
the same Workgroup that the other machines are configured to use.

I noticed there didn't seem to be a "Workgroup" setting in the
samba.conf file, so Samba would appear to be using the default. (Though
I wasn't specifically looking to see if it was using a Windows Domain
Server, as I've no experience there. If you're using one, then you don't
have a workgroup anymore.)

Ideally, unless you're using a domain server, you want to have a
specific known name for your Workgroup. Don't just use the default, as
the default can be different depending on the OS.

Cheers,

--
Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E