On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In reply to:Daniel J. Brosemer > > Quoting Daniel J. Brosemer([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > This looks useful, I'll spend the time to find out how it wants to be > > compiled sometime. > Shhh, boy did I screw up! It was supposed to say DIAGNOSE.TXT! > Sorry!!!
LOL, it's okay, have a look at what I just found has been staring me in the face! man smbclient SYNOPSIS smbclient servicename ... [-L NetBIOS name] ... ^^^^^^^^^ Hmm... maybe I need to keep my eyes open more. > > > > Why is my samba box not the master? (I've got my smb.conf attached > > > > later) > > > > btw, FRIGG isn't a printer, but I would like to have it serve a printer > > > > which explains the Comment field. > > > This is all explained in the docs! To have your Linux box be the > > > master put this in [ global ] > > > os level = 33 > The docs say that an os level of 33 forces the Linux box to be the > master. Well that USED to be the case anyway. I am using my old > smb.conf. from 1.9.10 and it works the same in 2.0.2. Maybe I should > RTFM on 2.0.2 myself. Well, the docs still claim that this is the case, though from personal experience I can tell you that it's obviously not that simple. I'll be sure and post when I figure out exactly the problem. Maybe we could benefit from a "Samba Quick-Start and FAQ" if there isn't one. I'll look, and if not, I'll start one when I figure this thing out. > > Still does not work, I eventually got it to be master, but not with this > > line which appeared to have no effect. I had been going through the > > BROWSING.txt file and removing and adding many things from smb.conf as > > experiments but to no avail, it just so happened that my os level = line > > was commented out when I pasted non-comment lines into the message. I > > always read docs before posting questions, and have been trying to figure > > this out for over a week. Please give people the benefit of the doubt > > before exclaiming that everything they need is in the docs. > Sorry but it seems like a lot of people don't. I have never seen the > smbclient done like you had it & thought THAT was the real problem. > As it was so different, I thought you might not have read the docs. Well, it _was_ a little different. I'll clean the dust off my glasses next time. > > > After reading the doc's let us know what you had to do to get it up, > > > OK. > > I gave it one last stab after the small success with your /etc/hosts > > suggestion I figured there were more resolution problems, and so I bit the > > bullet and enabled the builtin WINS server in samba, pointed the win95 box > > at it, and all appears to work. I don't like this because I think there > > should be a better way, but in the meantime, I'll use this as it appears > > to work. > Yes that would bother me to. It looks like you are close now tho. A > few more tweaks and you will have it. > Good luck! Thanks for reporting back. And I apologize for the tone > of my first reply. No harm done, sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks again. -Dano