Hi there,

Been searching in a few places to figure this out.

We have a UNIX mounted drive that all users access through Windows. The only way to access that drive is through a NIS UNIX user account.

Now, in my .profile, I have set my umask to be 002. When I go through UNIX as my NIS user to the drive and create a directory it gets created with:

machine [prompt] $ mkdir bob
machine [prompt] $ touch bob.txt
machine [prompt] $ ll
total 20
drwxrwxr-x 2 nisuser nisusers 4096 Oct 3 15:20 bob
-rw-rw-r-- 1 nisuser nisusers 0 Oct 3 15:20 bob.txt
machine [prompt] $

Just as I like.

Now, if I do the same through the drive mounted through Windows that uses my NIS account to authorise access to the drive:

machine [prompt] $ ll
total 20
drwxr-xr-x 2 nisuser nisusers 4096 Oct 3 15:23 bob
-rwxr--r-- 1 nisuser nisusers 0 Oct 3 15:23 bob.txt

Anyone know how to make Windows stop this stupid file permissions. It's getting a pain in the ass to have to maunually change file permissions through UNIX so that everyone else can edit files I create or create files in directories I have created, and vice versa to change file permissions on directories other people have created.

Regards,

Sorted it, it was down to samba:

Made the following changes on inis:

In /etc/samba/smb.cnf, added the two lines:

[entry]
comment = NIS Shared Drive
path = /nisshare
; guest ok = yes
writeable = yes
; browseable = yes
write list = @accesslist
valid users = @accesslist
printable = no
create mask = 0664
directory mask = 0775

Then restarted samba:

[root@machine samba]# /etc/init.d/smb restart
Shutting down SMB services: [ OK ]
Shutting down NMB services: [ OK ]
Starting SMB services: [ OK ]
Starting NMB services: [ OK ]
[root@machine samba]#

This meant any files created would have 664 permissions (read write / read write / read) and any new directories would have 775 permissions (read write execute / read write execute / read execute). For anyone that was interested...

:thumb:

Sorted it, it was down to samba:

Made the following changes on inis:

In /etc/samba/smb.cnf, added the two lines:

[entry]
comment = NIS Shared Drive
path = /nisshare
; guest ok = yes
writeable = yes
; browseable = yes
write list = @accesslist
valid users = @accesslist
printable = no
create mask = 0664
directory mask = 0775

Then restarted samba:

[root@machine samba]# /etc/init.d/smb restart
Shutting down SMB services: [ OK ]
Shutting down NMB services: [ OK ]
Starting SMB services: [ OK ]
Starting NMB services: [ OK ]
[root@machine samba]#

This meant any files created would have 664 permissions (read write / read write / read) and any new directories would have 775 permissions (read write execute / read write execute / read execute). For anyone that was interested...

:thumb:

Cool. I've not really messed with Samba. I had to get it up and running at some network shop years ago but I didn't really know what I was doing. I just made it work. They sell this book, The Samba Bible....it's HUGE!

Cool. I've not really messed with Samba. I had to get it up and running at some network shop years ago but I didn't really know what I was doing. I just made it work. They sell this book, The Samba Bible....it's HUGE!

Yeah, I don't really know too much about samba either. Figured this bit out though. Yeah, the System Administrator at our place has a similar sized book, and it's kind of off putting just looking at the sheer size of the book.

It's not in large print either, so you know it's chock a block full of difficult stuff !

:brickwall:

Sorted it, it was down to samba:

Made the following changes on inis:

In /etc/samba/smb.cnf, added the two lines:

[entry]
comment = NIS Shared Drive
path = /nisshare
; guest ok = yes
writeable = yes
; browseable = yes
write list = @accesslist
valid users = @accesslist
printable = no
create mask = 0664
directory mask = 0775

Then restarted samba:

[root@machine samba]# /etc/init.d/smb restart
Shutting down SMB services: [ OK ]
Shutting down NMB services: [ OK ]
Starting SMB services: [ OK ]
Starting NMB services: [ OK ]
[root@machine samba]#

This meant any files created would have 664 permissions (read write / read write / read) and any new directories would have 775 permissions (read write execute / read write execute / read execute). For anyone that was interested...

:thumb:

Ahh bugger , you beat me to it :notme:

Sorry Dave, but I'm reminded of "Wayne's World 2"


"Heyyyy-yyyy ..... that's a UNIX manual there"


:lol:

nah, seriously mate, Kudos ...

I tried for a while to be unix admin' at work ... didn't work out too well!!

Ahh bugger , you beat me to it :notme:

:lol:

Sorry Dave, but I'm reminded of "Wayne's World 2"


"Heyyyy-yyyy ..... that's a UNIX manual there"




nah, seriously mate, Kudos ...

I tried for a while to be unix admin' at work ... didn't work out too well!!

I'm a nerd, I will admit it. But I'm learning how to be a bigger one !

:toothless:

:lol:



I'm a nerd, I will admit it. But I'm learning how to be a bigger one !

:toothless:
Sure looks so, especially when posting some question like this one around here, something tells me you already knew the answer before even posting it, :lol:

Sure looks so, especially when posting some question like this one around here, something tells me you already knew the answer before even posting it, :lol:

Urrr, yeah. Cuz I'm like that...

:headscratch:

I posted it whilst I researched it and figured it out in the end. Unless you hadn't noticed, this was the Computer Stuff forum, and also, in case you hadn't noticed, there's a few guys like ericgtr, Pod God, and nroberts who really know their shit and can explain it in normal speak.

So putting 2 and 2 together, I thought I would give it a go and post the question here in the hope that I would find an answer that I would understand, as opposed to on some site where even if I did get the answer it would take me years to decypher it.

But then, whilst waiting for an answer, I stumbled across the answer, and bam, it worked, so nice, guy that I am, I posted the solution to my question as well in case any of the aforementioned people were interested.

I take from your response that you are one of the people who weren't...

:dunno:

Urrr, yeah. Cuz I'm like that...

:headscratch:

Unless you hadn't noticed, this was the Computer Stuff forum, and also, in case you hadn't noticed, there's a few guys like ericgtr, Pod God, and nroberts who really know their shit and can explain it in normal speak.

:lol: Hehe, no prob, after reading this bit it sure seems I should learn my "shit" and explain it better in "normal" speak..... Sorry dude, I was just joking, but apparently you did not get it. Oh well, have a nice day,...nerd? :p

I respect you computer geeks , i once had the urge to be a computer geek . I bought a Spectrum 128 with cassette , and got a book on the language , i think it was Dos :headscratch: , but may of been Tos , anyway after spending the best part of a day on a simple program to make a digital clock appear on the tv screen , i threw the towel in .

I respect you computer geeks , i once had the urge to be a computer geek . I bought a Spectrum 128 with cassette , and got a book on the language , i think it was Dos :headscratch: , but may of been Tos , anyway after spending the best part of a day on a simple program to make a digital clock appear on the tv screen , i threw the towel in .
No way, commodore 64 had a better chip for music! :p

there's a few guys like ericgtr, Pod God, and nroberts who really know their shit and can explain it in normal speak.


Lol, I know absolutely nothing about Samba... so I guess you're a bigger geek than I am:D

Lol, I know absolutely nothing about Samba... so I guess you're a bigger geek than I am:D
I konw the Samba, it's almost exactly like the Hustle only you take an extra side step.

I konw the Samba, it's almost exactly like the Hustle only you take an extra side step.

Dude... you are old!!!! :lol:

Dude... you are old!!!! :lol:


Yeah ... but he gets more chicks by knowing the dance moves!! ;)

btw ... was that Janelle I saw waltzing past with the boss a few seconds ago?? :eek:

Yeah ... but he gets more chicks by knowing the dance moves!! ;)

btw ... was that Janelle I saw waltzing past with the boss a few seconds ago?? :eek:
Yeah but it wasn't a waltz, she was too drunk to walk and I was helping her along. Similar, but not quite the same.

Yeah but it wasn't a waltz, she was too drunk to walk and I was helping her along. Similar, but not quite the same.
Feet over feet eh? Takes a bit of strength to keep up with the rhythm, but the prize can be rewarding, :p

Yeah but it wasn't a waltz, she was too drunk to walk and I was helping her along. Similar, but not quite the same.

Same old problem, eh? ... then again ... makes 'em a bit more (ahem) amenable to the more "obscure" ... er ... shall we say ... 'requests'?

Personally, I find that abject begging, followed by chocolates ... and if all else fails, MONEY, seems to work (if the alcohol fails)

:eek: :tmi:

Yeah ... but he gets more chicks by knowing the dance moves!! ;)

btw ... was that Janelle I saw waltzing past with the boss a few seconds ago?? :eek:

I knew it:stick: