Um, thanks for the rant ...
1) I'm not badmouthing Linux, Samba, or anyone, Mr Sanchez. My comparison
of KISS vs the rope was a recognition of the power of Linux, while
acknowledging that it requires skill. The last letter of KISS stands for
Stupid. The point is, as you eloquently pointed out, that MS and Linux
people often think differently. As I said in my original post - it's not
wrong, just different. I am NOT criticizing Linux or Samba.
2) I'm not exhibiting two-dimensional thinking, and I can assure you that
neither Microsoft nor their metaphors have me by the throat or any other
part of my mind, body, or soul.
3) I believe %m is a macro which expands to the Netbios name for the client
machine, not the current user name. I suspect you meant to propose the use
of %U (session user name), or %u (user name of the current service, if any) .
4) No I don't have specific user shares such as [bill] [mary] and [mark] as
you've exemplified below. The [homes] section in my smb.conf does that job
for me perfectly.
I thank you for your consideration of this issue, but I don't think you
understand what I was asking for.
I don't want the CREATION or MAPPING of a share to be user/group DERIVED. I
want it's BROWSEABILITY to be CONDITIONAL on user/group membership.
I'm trying to achieve the equivalence of the following:-
browseable = the boolean truth of "the current user is in the following
list of users, or is a member of one or more of the following list of groups"
Here's a (hopefully) humorous contrived example of what I'd like to be able
to put in smb.conf:-
[smutty_pics]
path = /usr/pics
public = no
browse list = @engineering @field_sales @it_guys fred george
valid users = @engineering @field_sales @it_guys fred george
write list = @it_guys fred george
printable = no
Note that "browse list" is not legal, but if it was, it would be exactly
what I want.
Clearly in the above example, it isn't enough just to make the browse
inaccessible to the ladies in Accounting, it would be better if the share
was not visible at all. I stress that the above is fictitious, but I think
it exemplifies what I want.
My actual requirement is simply to make various directories VISIBLE to my
wife and I, but INVISIBLE to our kids, while NOT having to put it all into
user directory trees.
Thank you for your help.
Julian Opificius.
=================================
At 04:54 AM 12/15/01 -0500, you wrote:
>- SEEING THE LIGHT with Samba -
>
>-- Snip ---
>
>I thought of it as a "duh", an obvious feature, and that I was
>overlooking
>the obvious, but apparently not. The more I think about it, it
>demonstrates
>the philosophical difference between Microsoft (the KISS principle) and
>Unix (the long rope - you either do rope tricks or hang yourself). The
>idea
>of iding unavailable shares for the sake of simplicity probably wouldn't
>
>occur to a Unix/Linux programmer. Not that it's wrong, just different.
>
>--- Snip ---
>
>Just like "browseable = no", right?
>No, I want the share to show up or not show up as a function of it's
>accessibility by the current login - i.e. login-dependant, rather than
>definition-dependant.
>
>-- Snip ---
>
>Ouch. You're effectively badmouthing Linux and Samba in the same breath.
>
>The problem is as Mr. Spock put it; you "are exhibiting two-dimensional
>thinking".
>
>The Microsoft metaphors have you firmly by the throat!
>
>Samba does indeed keep it simple with the added advantage of incredible
>flexibility.
>
>This same flexibility is hiding the rather obvious from you, namely you
>are looking at "shares" (as defined by the [sharename] headers) in the
>wrong light.
>
>The "solution" is plainly documented, but often overlooked as a
>result...
>
>So here is ONE way of doing what you want easily...
>
>You probably have smb.conf share headers already defined in the file...
>Such as
>
>[Bill]
> Path = /home/bill
> public = no
> valid users = bill
>[Mary]
> Path = /home/mary
> public = no
> valid users = mary
>[Mark]
> Path = /home/mark
> public = no
> valid users = mark
>
>What you've done is effectively defined things which YOU WANT
>"advertised" by Samba discreetly...
>
>-WRONG-!
>
>Instead what you want is
>
>[home]
> path = /home/%m
> public = no
> writeable = yes
> valid users = bill mark mary @validgroup
>
>BTW: Samba will create the directories for you automatically as the
>users attach, if they don't exist.
>BTW: The @validgroup definition is another way to define valid users...
>
>That's it!
>
>Huh? (I hear the scratching of the head from here...)
>
>Yes the %m is a Samba "on the fly" substitution macro, which gets
>replaced when the user attempts to attach to the share...
>
>So when Mark attaches to the \\SAMBABOX\HOME share he only sees
>/home/mark
>
>Likewise when Mary attaches to it, she only sees /home/mary. Etc.
>
>Samba provides MANY easy ways to skin the cat. Microsoft provides one.
>
>Don't mistake Microsoft's restrictions for EASE OF USE. Your familiarity
>with Microsoft's metaphors came at a cost. A newbie would be just as
>clueless with Microsoft's way of doing things as they would be with
>Samba.
>
>Microsoft doesn't make it inherently easy, rather you are used to their
>way of thinking.
>
>Samba/Linux does not require rope tricks, just the same "devotion" to
>reading the manual (or playing with things) that you at one point
>underwent with MS$'s products.
>
>Linux can sing, the 800lb gorilla can only grunt.
>
>My $.02 worth.
>
>-JMS
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==============================
Julian A. Opificius.
802 Fawn Road, Elk River, MN 55330.
Home: 763.441.1291, Cell: 763.360.5919
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 3268206
==============================
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
