I have installed Samba under Raspbian and my old Win95-machine (where all the NTLM-patches etc are installed) could access some shared folders on the Raspberry Pi without problems.
The day before yesterday Samba under Raspbian happended to be upgraded.
Since this happened, the Win95-machine cannot access any shared folder any more. In the "Network Neighbourhood" of Win95 the RaspberryPI still shows up. No error-message occurs but the folders from the RaspberryPI won't show up - the folder-listing remains empty.
When accessing the shared folders via Windows 7, everything seems to work as usual: The folder-list of the Raspberry Pi's shared folders shows up and when attempting to access one of those folders, one gets prompted for username and passwort. After typing these, folders are accessible for read and write.
What might be the reason for this?
Is there a possibility to "undo" the upgrade / to uninstall that new Samba release and to install the previous release instead?
It's been a long time, but there's a difference in the way Win95 and NT communicate with SMB servers. Something like a difference in the way passwords are hashed. Defaults changed between the operating systems.
In my case, I needed to make NT talk to an older Samba, so there was a registry setting I had to set to make it do things the old way.
I suspect there's a Samba setting to help it deal with the Win95 way, but it's been so long since I dealt with it that I don't remember any of the details.
Look in the smb and nmb logs in /var/log/samba. Those should tell you the reason for any rejected access requests. You might need to adjust the logging level in /etc/samba/smb.conf
"Ulrich D i e z" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:mdj1ql$ca5$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net...
Newer Samba releases don't longer allow obsolete SMB/CIFS prototol levels by default for security reasons. But if you have any legacy applications still in use (in my case for example a MS-DOS LAN Manager floppy disk for Norton Ghost and PowerQuest DriveImage backups. Note: Realtek still supplies updated NDIS2 drivers today), then you should add the following lines:
Important note: Such old clients still need the LM hash password format so after activation of the configuration above, you have to apply "smbpasswd" (set the password) to all accounts which are used on your Windows 95 system.
Andreas
--
"127.0.0.1 was ist das? Ich kenne nur ::1!" - www.swissipv6council.ch
I have installed Samba under Raspbian and my old Win95-machine (where all the NTLM-patches etc are installed) could access shared folders on the Raspberry Pi without problems.
Samba was installed in February of this year
The day before yesterday Samba under Raspbian happended to be upgraded.
Is there a repository somewhere out there with the previous Samba release so I can revert to the previous installation for checking differences in config-files?
The point is: There is no error-essage at all. And I don't find anything in the log.files. The shared folders just don't get listed and thus cannot get acessed from Win95 any more.
I have had similar issues in the past and its usually been the upgrade defaulting to a newer standard and needing to be *told explicitly* to use the older one.
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. ? Erwin Knoll
Well I think they are. It gives a hint as to where to look: into the smb configuration to see if there is a new switch that needs to be set back to a compatibility mode..
Definitely the way things were done changed between win95 and the next edition or two of windows.
I remember having to edit the registry to get later versions to work with older sambas
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. ? Erwin Knoll
What support - besides asking in this newsgroup and being thankful for helpful replies - is available for somebody not all too experienced with Raspbian?
I already did that and I already found that url and I already read what is told there.
When I installed Samba back in February, I performed all the steps described at that url and everything worked out.
The day before yesterday, a co-worker of mine performed:
- sudo apt-get update
- sudo apt-get upgrade
- sudo apt-get clean ( He did not backup the entire SD-card first as I would have done. As he also did "sudo apt-get clean", the old .deb-files are gone.)
Now there is: Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u5 and the log-files say that the following package-replacements took place:
samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 replaced by samba_2%3a3.6.6-6+deb7u5_armhf.deb libwbclient0:armhf 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 replaced by libwbclient0_2%3a3.6.6-6+deb7u5_armhf.deb smbclient 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 replaced by smbclient_2%3a3.6.6-6+deb7u5_armhf.deb samba-common 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 replaced by samba-common_2%3a3.6.6-6+deb7u5_all.deb libsmbclient:armhf 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 replaced by libsmbclient_2%3a3.6.6-6+deb7u5_armhf.deb samba-common-bin 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 replaced by samba-common-bin_2%3a3.6.6-6+deb7u5_armhf.deb
I already spent hours fiddling with smb.conf etc.
I also (without avail) tried to get things to work again by performing the instructions from once more.
The situation is:
Before the upgrade everything worked out with Win95 as well. In the meantime the Win95 setup was not changed. (Win95 runs in a virtual machine under Win 7 and nobody but me has access to the image-file.) But Samba was upgraded from 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 (afaik) to 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u5 by a co-worker of mine. Now things don't work out with Win95 any more.
I'd like to get back to Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 and see whether I can get things to work again. If so, I can check the differences (e.g., default-values in smb.conf) between Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u5 and Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 in the hope that knowledge about these differences is helpful when it comes to configuring Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u5 .
Is there a repository where 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 is still available that I could add to /etc/apt/sources.list or where I could download the .deb-files "by hand" ?
I _think_ six files are needed - with Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u5 you seem to get the files
Yesterday I updated/upgraded Raspbian on my Raspberry Pi and I noticed the following issue:
Before the upgrade I had Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u4 . Since the upgrade I have Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u5 .
Before the upgrade, under Win95 (that's the machine my dad and my grandpa often use as they are used to it), the Raspberry Pi / the Samba machine showed up in the "Network Neighbourhood". All shared folders from the Raspberry Pi were displayed correctly and read and write access was possible.
After the upgrade some shared folders did not show up any more.
The folders that did not show up any more had in common that the names used for sharing them were made up by more than eleven characters.
(Under Windows 7 these folders were still displayed correctly.)
So I edited /etc/samba/smb.conf in order to have folder names with at most eleven characters - upper- and lowercase letters from the alphabet. No digits. No spaces. No underscore. No German
So the sections for the single shares in smb.conf look like this:
Windows95 uses 8.3 filenames on its local disks. It holds a hidden file with mappings to the long names that are displayed.
It looks to me as though the previous version of Sambs sent the 8.3 names, and the new version sends the long names. Is there any config item in Samba to control this?
--
Alan Adams, from Northamptonshire
alan@adamshome.org.uk
http://www.nckc.org.uk/
I don't know whether the following is of relevance in this context:
With Samba 2:3.6.6-6+deb7u5, sharing with a Win95 machine a folder that is stored on that Rapberry Pi machine where the Samba Server runs only works when the name that one chooses to assign to the Samba-share in question within /etc/samba/smb.conf doesn't have more than eleven characters.
a) Whether on the Samba-machine/host-machine the path to the directory that is reached by accessing the Samba-share in question has long file-names or not doesn't matter.
b) In case the directory-structure that is to be reached by accessing the Samba-share contains items (files or sub-directories) with long file-names/path-names, these can also be accessed b y the Win95-machine as long as the share itself has a name which is made up by at most 11 characters.
So the issue seems not to be about the directory-structure within that part of a host-machine's file system that is to be shared by means of Samba.
But it seems to be only about the names that one chooses oneself within smb.conf for denominating/distinguishing those access-points to the host machine's file system that are provided by Samba as so-called shares.
For my grandpa, my dad and me sticking to Samba-Shares whose names don't have more than 11 characters is not a problem.
Meanwhile I did some searching in the internet and I found some postings/blog-entries where people are adviced not to use more than 11 characters for names of Samba-shares as otherwise problems might occur.
That's cool. For updates on Windows 9X, Microsoft want you to phone their Product Services Support and pay them $200, although it's said that if you ask the service representative specifically for the update and not technical assistance, he or she will usually waive the charges. So you won't find the download page for the Active Directory client extension that's needed for enabling NTLM 2 on the Microsoft website now, not that I can see, anyway.
However, sometimes the direct link to the downloadable file remains in place, as seems to be the case for the 9X DSClient, fortunately:
formatting link
Personally, I think that if you're still using Windows 95 for
*anything*, then you're ignoring easier (and probably cheaper) ways of doing the same thing.
Personally I never really used Win95 myself. That operating system is older than me. Generally I seldom use whatsoever Windows. (I prefer debian and ubuntu.) But my grandpa and my dad and my uncle use it. They are stonemason-masters and they run a small company where they produce marble-stairs, stone-floors, windowsills, tombstones and the like. They never used computers at all until in
1995 my dad insisted in not doing all the book-keeping work by means of typewriter, pen, paper, books and filing-cabinet any more. Back then they took evening lessons at the community college and that was the first time they came in touch with personal computers at all. Back then Computers with Win95 were state-of-the-art. Back then they bought computers and software and that's it.
They use the computer for bookkeeping and for business correspondence. The databases for all kinds of bookkeeping (financial management, debitors, creditors/vendors, assets accounting, payroll accounting, investment, performance and costing, stock and materials etc) and for finding both printed and electronic (pdf-) documents within the registry and within the archive are kept within a local sql server and nowadays these databases are maintained via some self-made input-masks written in sql and html. Business correspondence even nowadays takes place only on paper whereby pdflatex is invoked for creating the respective pdf-files.
Even nowadays they don't feel the need for having an internet-connection and I am not inclined to do a lot of persuading in order to drag them into using something new which they don't feel all too comfortable about.
Within the dLAN intra-net, nowadays a raspberry pi, with three external hard disk drives that are used in rotating turns, is used for workdaily backing up the sql-databases.
Summa sumarum:
I think your statement about Win95 and easier and cheaper ways of doing the same things is right.
On the other hand there are people who are rather reluctant when it is about abondoning a running system in favour of something unknown.
Yes, that's always the way, isn't it? The danger is that it suddenly fails, and they can't find a computer that can run Windows 95. For example, Windows 98 can't run on a computer faster than 2.2GHz (Microsoft Support issue Q312108) and I've seen that affect a 1.6GHz Pentium-M.
If you can get, e.g., a reconditioned Dell Optiplex which is an easy-to-maintain workhorse, with 2.8Ghz dual-core, 4GB RAM, 80GB HD,
owner can just buy it, and take their time migrating while the original system still works.
And then spend the next 8 weeks and thousand of pounds trying to get legacy software to run on it, or learning how to use a modern equivalent, and porting all the old data to opt.
I remember seeing a 21 year old IBM 360. Still running the special software that was written for the company that owned it. And in no need of doing other than what it did and always had done.
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. ? Erwin Knoll
The most funny point about the situation in the special case described by me: No software in use is really bound to Win95:
- Some web-browser is in use for displaying
- the php-scripts and html-pages that are in use.
- SQL is in use.
- Some LaTeX-distribution is in use.
All these things are available for all kinds of platform.
In order to cope with the scenario of the old Win95-machine breaking, I already have silently prepared the technical aspects of two scenarios:
- Either migrating the Win95-Installations to virtual machines on new computers.
- Or migrating to Debian Wheezy. I already have variants of the php-scripts and HTML-pages that interact nicely with IceWeasel, TeXLive, php and MariaDB. Migrating the databases to MariaDB seems also to work nicely. That's all that is needed.
I think I prepared the change over to a new computer in a way which will not bee all too hard from the point of view of a user.
( The most fiddly issue for me now is learning about licenses. E.g., with Debian there is a lot of software that is free for non-commercial use while using the software in the company of my grandpa and his sons is most probably not non-commercial... )
What I won't do is increasing the stress-level on the side of my grandpa and his sons by trying to convince them to switch to something unknown as long as they don't see a need for doing so.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.