[Samba] Windows and Linux can't access Samba at the same time.

Rowland Penny rowlandpenny at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 10 14:52:08 MST 2014

On 10/02/14 18:58, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
> On 10/02/14 17:36, Rowland Penny wrote:
>> On 10/02/14 16:42, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>>> On 10/02/14 09:32, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>> </snip>
>>>> Hi, you might think that you are running a Ubuntu samba server, but 
>>>> you are not, you are running a workgroup.
>>> Hmm - I'm not sure the above makes sense. He is running samba in 
>>> server mode on the Ubuntu machine - so he is running a samba server. 
>>> Unless you are trying to say something about Samba in DC mode, or 
>>> even something else? Samba in workgroup mode is still a samba server.
>> So every windows machine that is part of a workgroup is also a 
>> server, no, they are all clients, there are no servers in a workgroup.
> Hmm - actually yes. If a Windows machine shares out any 
> folder/directory, it is automatically an SMB server. It acts as an SMB 
> file server, sharing out SMB shares - so it is one. At least in the 
> way client-server relationships have been understood in the world of 
> networking since times immemorial. If you mean there are no *logon* 
> servers in the world of SMB workgroups, that is correct. But there is 
> no limit on how many SMB servers you can have in a workgroup. Every 
> machine that runs a piece of SMB software in server mode and shares 
> out directories - being a Windows, OSX, Linux etc. machine - is 
> automatically an SMB server because it is acting as one. Just as you 
> can have as many FTP or NFS servers as you like in a network.
> Just because in the MS Windows world sharing folders out and accessing 
> folders shared on other machines is lumped together in one package as 
> "file and folder sharing" doesn't mean the distinction does not exist 
> in reality.
Have you ever administered a workgroup? once you get over 10 or so 
computers, it gets hard, over 20 extremely hard, any more than this 
virtually impossible. If workgroups are so good, why did microsoft come 
up with their servers?

Sharing a directory does not make a pc a server.

> </snip>
>>>> The smb.conf on the raspberry pi needs to be basically the same as 
>>>> the ubuntu one but without the shares.
>>> I'm not sure about that one either. The pi is acting as a samba 
>>> client. It should be able to just connect to any Samba compliant 
>>> server - even a Windows machine with file sharing enabled. Can't 
>>> quite see it needing the same smb.conf as the server.
>> Well yes, I will give you this one, but the users on the pi will 
>> still have to be users on any workgroup computer that they want to 
>> connect to.
> Not strictly true. At least several versions of Windows (starting from 
> about Windows Vista, if I remember correctly) will kindly prompt you 
> for a username/password  combination when accessing an SMB server 
> where the credentials of the user currently logged in locally have 
> been rejected. Than you can input on the spot whatever 
> username/password combination the SMB server will accept. So no, you 
> don't really have to have a user account already setup on the client 
> in order to access the SMB server - it might be convenient, but you 
> don't have to. Same goes for the smbclient command line tool in Linux, 
> which will happily accept username/password combinations as arguments.
OK, lets put it this way, if you want to consistently connect from pc A 
to pc B in a workgroup, pc B must know the user on pc A or it will ask 
for the username & password of the user on pc A every time it connects.

More information about the samba mailing list