wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Sun Aug 31 23:17:31 UTC 2008
On 09/01/2008 12:52 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> Scott Robbins wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
>>> As a thought - I'm wondering if the topic needs slitting up into
>>> multiple sections/pages? Maybe something like:
>>> An introduction/overview to samba (users, file permissions etc)
>>> Basic samba setup with example (security=share)
>>> Group shares with examples (security=user)
>>> AD integration
>>> etc ...
>> That seems to me to be the best way.
> When I was reading through some documentation a few weeks ago,
> specifically the "Samba by Example" book:
> I was surprised that the "more basic" examples were commonly using
> security = share. I thought I had read somewhere in the past that
> security = share was either deprecated or at least not recommended
> hence my surprise at seeing it being used in the official
> documentation. Personally I've always used user level security but
> share level would certainly ease a few potential headaches for new
> users requiring a "quick and dirty" share.
> Just so we're all on the same page, does anyone know (or have any
> views) what the current thinking is on this?
I am using security=share whenever I am not interested in authentication
(public shares that is).
The not so famous " map to guest = Bad User " was a much bigger headache.
More information about the CentOS-docs