[lug] Windows *SHUTTER* Shares (fwd)

Dhruva B. Reddy sledgehammer2010 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 26 07:07:51 MDT 2001


At work, we have an all W2K network (what can I say?  Our IT director was the
quintessential M$ drone) with Hacktive Directory.  We cannot mount each others'
shares on our workstations without allowing full access to a user (doesn't have 
to be everyone--just the user who wants to mount the share).

I once tried to mount a share on my machine running Samba from a w95 machine.  I
got an error message saying that you have to log onto w95 in order to mount a
drive.  What you say below tells me that w95 requires that you create a username
identical to that on the host machine (hey, nobody said w95 was a finished
product--at least nobody worth mentioning :-)

I would suggest subscribing to the samba mailing list
http://us6.samba.org/samba/archives.html.  There is a lot of traffic, including
a lot of spam, but I found them quite helpful. 

Dhruva

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 05:39:02AM -0500, John Karns wrote:
> Interesting.  My attempts to smbmount a w2k share only succeeded after
> allowing full access to the "everyone" (user or group - don't remember
> which) on two different w2k boxes I tried.  Is that your experience as
> well?  I was passing username and password, but no workgroup as you show
> above.
> 
> I was unable to get smbclient to work at all.  I attributed that to the
> change in the security / login mechanism in w2k from w9x.  AFAIK, w9x
> doesn't use a uid in granting share access, but only a pw, and w2k prompts
> for both.  I reverted back to w9x after a corruption problem with w2k, and
> after an image backup to tape (via dd) failed to restore - boot loader
> generated an error indicating that the w2k kernel file could not be found;
> but will probably make another stab at it before long.
> 



More information about the LUG mailing list