Easily learn how to setup file sharing in Linux using Samba, by reading this tutorial, titled Easily Compile and Configure Samba. It will show you how to compile samba, create your own configuration file, how to secure your samba server, and how to activate swat.
Easily Compile and Configure Samba
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Here’s a free Oreilly book on samba:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/samba/chapter/book/
There are much better howtos and docs for samba. Most distributions ship with a configuration tool which is distribution specific, so things end up in the right place (for example his printer setting wouldn’t work on mandrake, on BSD his swat setting wouldn’t work…) In terms of general configuration swat itself is pretty good for setup even if the distribution specific setup is not so good. At this point someone hand coding an smb.conf shouldn’t be cutting and pasting from an example.
Further even if the distributions didn’t go already a better job than this article this article is really poor. The directory structure makes no sense. Why would you put samba service in /usr/local but the configuration in /etc? I can understand the distributions getting rid of /usr/etc; but the whole point of /usr/local is that you aren’t messing with directories likely to be changed by a revision of the OS and frankly /etc/samba/smb.conf is likely to be messed with.
How about dependencies? Why use source here when so many packages need samba and using an rpm or apt they may getting their files partially overwritten. What distributions don’t use automatic package management other than slackware (which also has samba instructions which are distribution specific).
Other advice which is bad ‘killall -HUP xinetd’
what about /etc/init.d/xinetd restart? Why teach a bad habit?
I could go on and on but I don’t see the point. This article strikes me as unlikely to be helpful to its intended audience, and their are much better alternatives. The author really doesn’t understand what he’s doing. Heck I”m not even a system admin and I found a mistake in virtually every other line.
Other advice which is bad ‘killall -HUP xinetd’
what about /etc/init.d/xinetd restart? Why teach a bad habit?
Won’t work on a slackware system you need to killall -HUP xinetd
Because slackware is BSDish
This just goes to prove how hard writing docs for Linux is in the current environment. Writing for a specific distro is easier but cross distro can be a nightmare.
My solution is to throw more standards at the problem. Standards make it easier for the software to work on disparite systems.
As for dependencies I use slack and don’t seem to have that problem. Maybe because I know what libraries are needed.
Samba Web Administration Tool
http://www.cushmanroad.com/dave/images/swatscreen.jpg
Other advice which is bad ‘killall -HUP xinetd’
what about /etc/init.d/xinetd restart? Why teach a bad habit?
*ahem* a bad habit? Sending HUP to a daemon is standard convention for rehashing the configuration.
Then again, I’d consider the use of xinetd (or inetd itself, for that matter) bad practice.
Apparently I re’d to the wrong person in my last post. Here’s a true Re: Richard
My solution is to throw more standards at the problem. Standards make it easier for the software to work on disparite systems.
-HUP was and still is the standard for configuration rehashing. I’d say the problem is daemons not handling HUP properly.
SMB is a bloated, overcomplicated piece of crap because Samba has to keep up with all the “changes” by Microsoft that are designed to make it hard for Linux to be compatible with Windows.
NFS is a beautiful unomplicated masterpiece that takes three files and ten simple lines to configure.
From Richard:
Won’t work on a slackware system you need to killall -HUP xinetd
Because slackware is BSDish
This just goes to prove how hard writing docs for Linux is in the current environment. Writing for a specific distro is easier but cross distro can be a nightmare.
Good point about Slackware. I agree cross distribution docs are very hard, which is why IMHO basic documentation on a standard package like Samba should be left to the distribution; and advanced documentation should be left to the Samba group (or at least someone who knows Samba). Anyway I have a hard time believing slackware users are intended, at this point slackware tends to go for a more knowledgeable crowd, one that know about the rather good howtos.
Bascule:
*ahem* a bad habit? Sending HUP to a daemon is standard
convention for rehashing the configuration.
I agree 100% its an old standard, and I stand by my statement that on a modern linux distributions its a bad habit. At this point packages are written in terms of service collection not individual daemons. Netatalk comes to immediately where the “atalk restart” shuts down and reloads: afpd, atalkd, timelord, papd in the right order. Bad things can happen if you screw up the sequence.
Worse yet, what if in your distribution the daemon is being passed arguments as part of the start up on the command line? I see no reason for people to be using the daemons directly if they are at the level where they need the kind of intro to samba that article provides.
Then again, I’d consider the use of xinetd (or inetd itself, for that matter) bad practice.
I’ve heard arguments against xinetd relative to inetd. Why would you consider inetd a bad practice?