[nzlug] samba: puzzled user...

[Simon Bridge]

On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 19:10 +1300, Robin Sheat wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2008 18:13:47 Simon Bridge wrote:
> > Do we really expect a user to enter the CLI to access, say, workplace
> > provided shares? I see that there are gui-based tools... surely a user
> > expects to enter "network neighborhood" (or Places > Network) and just
> > see the available services? Perhaps Places > Connect to Server to
> > "activate" a service?
> From what I understand (and use): Places -> Network -> Windows Network, pick 
> the workgroup and the computer. Or, from a file manager window, enter the 
> location (e.g. smb://computername)
> 
> This doesn't mount it on the filesystem, but gives access to Gnome 
> VFS-supporting applications, which is what I need 99% of the time.
> 
OK - so the workgroup talk is a red herring - - -

> > This is curious as no such thing is needed when I just share a
> > directory.
> Samba as installed has a workgroup defined. System->Administration->Shared 
> Folders->General Properties tab will let you change it.
> 
> > Consider: In Ubuntu I can rt-click on the ~/Public folder and select
> > "Share this folder" - enter the desired workgroup, and that's it. I can
> You enter the desired share name, which is completely different.
> 
Actually - entered both. But you're right - that dialog is not where the
workgroup got entered. Setting a unique share name turned out to be
useful otherwise I ended up with 5 shares called "Public". OK - they
ended up in a subdirectory of the computer hostname.

So it strikes me that it may just be useful, for the setup I have, just
to name the "workgroup" after the host and have done with it.

> > Once set up, the share seems to show up in XP's network neighborhood and
> > in Places > Network... but not all for all connected linux machines.
> Because windows networking is a bit rubbish, and sometimes machines just 
> refuse to show up. Usually you can access them directly by typing the name.
Sayy what? Where?

>  
> You'll see a lot of stories, with just plain windows networks, where machine 
> A can see B and C, B can only see A, and C can only see B, and similar stupid 
> things.
OK - so here I was thinking in terms of consistent behaviour and the
thing is renowned for not working consistently. Gotcha. No wonder I was
driving myself up the wall.

> 
> > Which then leads to wondering what happens where a network has several
> > different workgroups, or a laptop moving between networks.
> It'll keep its workgroup name as it moves. Even if it ends up being the only 
> machine in that workgroup.

Workgroup name is associated with the machine really - it's just that
there can be many machines, on the same network, with the same workgroup
name, where hostnames need to be unique?

> 
> > I'm not sure how to clarify... how does the client know what to ask for?
> > Well: presumably the user tells it. Like - "request all shares in
> > workgroup 'fubar'" or instructions to that effect.
> No, request all shares on machine 'bazz'.
> 
Right - so a new machine joins a network, it's samba client announces "I
am here" and goes into a huddle with the servers... the servers
basically say "Hi, I'm Bazz, I'm in workgroup fubar, have I got a folder
for you: extra folds..." sort of thing?

> > So - what if I want to share a directory to every computer that comes
> > along... so when the server gets any request for a share in any
> > workgroup, a particular share gets sent irregardless of whether the
> > requested workgroup exists.
> Well, you'd be asking a machine for the share, workgroup independent.
> 
i.e. ALL shares on a machine should be "visible" to all clients on the
network, except for the usual Windows Network snafu.

> > Probably indigo prime needs to restart samba server.
> When it gets sticky like that, you can just /etc/init.d/samba restart. It'll 
> often help, but it's rarely needed.
> 
It is usual that at least one out of these five machines will not be
visible without a restart. This time it was two.

> > If I alter one of the machines so that system > shared folders > general
> > has a different workgroup, reboot, then that machine no longer appears
> > in the others' smb:///
> Sometimes it can take a while for the new workgroup information to propagate. 
> Sometimes it doesn't show up at all because windows networking is a bit 
> rubbish.
OK - but how long before I decide that it's not going to happen...
10mins? So why didn't the mount work? Why do all these people insist
that the workgroups have to match - or is that only in the windows
world?

> 
> What we really need is a Linux/UNIX-oriented file sharing system that can be 
> easily mounted, whether by the kernel or by e.g. Gnome-VFS, and advertises by 
> avahi, which has always seemed a whole lot more reliable to me. And it'll 
> mean it'll handle file names and permissions that windows chokes on. (Can't 
> have a ':' in a filename? Madness!)
> 

That sounds promising. Possibly port to windows too... maybe a way
windows users can get around network restrictions in some editions of
the license?