[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SOLVED: samba 2.0 troubles (mostly)

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 wtopa@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> In reply to:Daniel J. Brosemer
> Quoting Daniel J. Brosemer(odin@bolverk.dorm.org):
> > 
> > This looks useful, I'll spend the time to find out how it wants to be
> > compiled sometime.
> Shhh, boy did I screw up!  It was supposed to say DIAGNOSE.TXT!
> Sorry!!!

LOL, it's okay, have a look at what I just found has been staring me in
the face!

man smbclient
    smbclient servicename ... [-L NetBIOS name] ...

Hmm... maybe I need to keep my eyes open more.

> > > > Why is my samba box not the master? (I've got my smb.conf attached later)
> > > > btw, FRIGG isn't a printer, but I would like to have it serve a printer
> > > > which explains the Comment field.
> > > This is all explained in the docs!  To have your Linux box be the
> > > master put this in [ global ]
> > >    os level = 33
> The docs say that an os level of 33 forces the Linux box to be the
> master.  Well that USED to be the case anyway.  I am using my old
> smb.conf. from 1.9.10 and it works the same in 2.0.2.  Maybe I should
> RTFM on 2.0.2 myself.

Well, the docs still claim that this is the case, though from personal
experience I can tell you that it's obviously not that simple.  I'll be
sure and post when I figure out exactly the problem.  Maybe we could
benefit from a "Samba Quick-Start and FAQ" if there isn't one.  I'll look,
and if not, I'll start one when I figure this thing out.

> > Still does not work, I eventually got it to be master, but not with this
> > line which appeared to have no effect.  I had been going through the
> > BROWSING.txt file and removing and adding many things from smb.conf as
> > experiments but to no avail, it just so happened that my os level = line
> > was commented out when I pasted non-comment lines into the message.  I
> > always read docs before posting questions, and have been trying to figure
> > this out for over a week.  Please give people the benefit of the doubt
> > before exclaiming that everything they need is in the docs.
> Sorry but it seems like a lot of people don't.  I have never seen the
> smbclient done like you had it & thought THAT was the real problem.
> As it was so different, I thought you might not have read the docs. 

Well, it _was_ a little different.  I'll clean the dust off my glasses
next time.

> > > After reading the doc's let us know what you had to do to get it up,
> > > OK.
> > I gave it one last stab after the small success with your /etc/hosts
> > suggestion I figured there were more resolution problems, and so I bit the
> > bullet and enabled the builtin WINS server in samba, pointed the win95 box
> > at it, and all appears to work.  I don't like this because I think there
> > should be a better way, but in the meantime, I'll use this as it appears
> > to work.
> Yes that would bother me to.  It looks like you are close now tho.  A
> few more tweaks and you will have it.
> Good luck!  Thanks for reporting back.  And I apologize for the tone
> of my first reply.

No harm done, sorry if I misunderstood.  Thanks again.


Reply to: