Peer networking basics

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by BigAl.NZ@gmail.com, Mar 22, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Hi guys,

    Can someone please put me on the right track here.

    I was under the impression that if you had two XP PC's connected with
    a crossover cable, Simple File Sharing turned on and a share set up on
    each PC that to access the share there would be some authentication,
    ie you would need to supply a user name and password of either a user
    on the machine that you want to access, or you must have created a
    identical user and password on the machine from which you are trying
    to gain access.

    Or use something like NET USE * \\server\share /user:username password

    However I tried this without the password and it worked.

    Can someone please explain why?

    Does it change if I am doing this with a XP<->Vista PC, ie does vista
    have simple file sharing or is it all permissions based?

    Cheers

    -Al
     
    , Mar 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. gordon Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > Can someone please put me on the right track here.
    >
    > I was under the impression that if you had two XP PC's connected with
    > a crossover cable, Simple File Sharing turned on and a share set up on
    > each PC that to access the share there would be some authentication,
    > ie you would need to supply a user name and password of either a user
    > on the machine that you want to access, or you must have created a
    > identical user and password on the machine from which you are trying
    > to gain access.
    >
    > Or use something like NET USE * \\server\share /user:username password
    >
    > However I tried this without the password and it worked.
    >
    > Can someone please explain why?



    Probably because you are using XP Home edition and the Guest account is
    enabled on both.....that wouldn't happen on XP Pro unless you (as you say)
    have the same User set up on each....


    >
    > Does it change if I am doing this with a XP<->Vista PC, ie does vista
    > have simple file sharing or is it all permissions based?
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > -Al
    >
     
    gordon, Mar 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:46:57 -0700, BigAl.NZ wrote:

    > I was under the impression that if you had two XP PC's connected with
    > a crossover cable, Simple File Sharing turned on and a share set up on
    > each PC that to access the share there would be some authentication,
    > ie you would need to supply a user name and password of either a user
    > on the machine that you want to access, or you must have created a
    > identical user and password on the machine from which you are trying
    > to gain access.


    Install an FTP server on one, and an FTP client on the other.

    Put a second NIC in the one with the server and use that as the gateway to
    the Internet.

    Set the second to use the first as its gateway.

    That way you'll be able to use FTP to transfer files.

    Also, if you were using a better OS that M$ Windows you would be able to
    set up NFS on both and then have the file system on one showing up as if
    it were a part of the native internal file system of the other.

    That way none of that bullshit "Simple File Sharing" rubbish would be
    necessary.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Arno Edelmann: "Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products."
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Enkidu Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:46:57 -0700, BigAl.NZ wrote:
    >
    >> I was under the impression that if you had two XP PC's connected with
    >> a crossover cable, Simple File Sharing turned on and a share set up on
    >> each PC that to access the share there would be some authentication,
    >> ie you would need to supply a user name and password of either a user
    >> on the machine that you want to access, or you must have created a
    >> identical user and password on the machine from which you are trying
    >> to gain access.

    >
    > Install an FTP server on one, and an FTP client on the other.
    >

    Lennier, he already has file sharing working. His question (part of
    which you snipped was about *why* it worked without requiring user login.
    >
    > Put a second NIC in the one with the server and use that as the gateway to
    > the Internet.
    >
    > Set the second to use the first as its gateway.
    >
    > That way you'll be able to use FTP to transfer files.
    >

    That wasn't his question. He already can do that.
    >
    > Also, if you were using a better OS that M$ Windows you would be able to
    > set up NFS on both and then have the file system on one showing up as if
    > it were a part of the native internal file system of the other.
    >

    He's already able to do that!
    >
    > That way none of that bullshit "Simple File Sharing" rubbish would be
    > necessary.
    >

    It works for him and millions of other. You probably know it better as
    'Samba'.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Mar 22, 2007
    #4
  5. On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:31:46 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

    >> That way none of that bullshit "Simple File Sharing" rubbish would be
    >> necessary.
    >>

    > It works for him and millions of other. You probably know it better as
    > 'Samba'.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    I know Samba. I know NFS better - I use NFS to have the documents on my
    file server available from my desktop.

    No drive letter required. It's simply a part of the file system (like any
    other partition is.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    Arno Edelmann: "Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products."
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 23, 2007
    #5
  6. Enkidu Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:31:46 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >>> That way none of that bullshit "Simple File Sharing" rubbish would be
    >>> necessary.
    >>>

    >> It works for him and millions of other. You probably know it better as
    >> 'Samba'.
    >>

    >
    > I know Samba. I know NFS better - I use NFS to have the documents on my
    > file server available from my desktop.
    >
    > No drive letter required. It's simply a part of the file system (like any
    > other partition is.
    >

    Duh! Lennier, you can mount Samba shares as if the were part of the file
    system too. Bloody useful too.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Mar 23, 2007
    #6
  7. Biggles Guest

    On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:15:13 +1200, Dianthus Mimulus wrote:

    <snip of cliff>
    >
    > I know Samba. I know NFS better - I use NFS to have the documents on my
    > file server available from my desktop.
    >


    Did you forget to take your pills this week ...


    Your NFS babble has nothing to do with the poster questions relating to XP
    file sharing .....


    Like cliff said if you think the windows file sharing is a crap method to
    share files, take your issues up with www.samba.org.

    I'm sure they will be thrilled to hear from you.



    Biggles...............................................
     
    Biggles, Mar 23, 2007
    #7
  8. On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:17:04 +1200, Biggles wrote:

    > Your NFS babble has nothing to do with the poster questions relating to XP
    > file sharing .....


    I didn't say it did.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 23, 2007
    #8
  9. On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:12:39 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

    > you can mount Samba shares as if the were part of the file
    > system too. Bloody useful too.


    How can you do that using Windoze?


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 23, 2007
    #9
  10. Enkidu Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:17:04 +1200, Biggles wrote:
    >
    >> Your NFS babble has nothing to do with the poster questions relating to XP
    >> file sharing .....

    >
    > I didn't say it did.
    >

    No, you went off at your usual tangent....

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Mar 23, 2007
    #10
  11. Enkidu Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:12:39 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> you can mount Samba shares as if the were part of the file
    >> system too. Bloody useful too.

    >
    > How can you do that using Windoze?
    >

    To a Windows machine a Samba file share looks like a share from another
    Windows machine. It appears as another drive eg X:. This is analogous to
    a Unix mount point.

    On a Unix machine running smbfs a Samba share appears as a file system
    at a mount point. smbfs mounts are of more use on Unix to mount SMB
    shares from a Windows machine.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Mar 23, 2007
    #11
  12. On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:54:06 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

    >> How can you do that using Windoze?
    >>

    > To a Windows machine a Samba file share looks like a share from another
    > Windows machine. It appears as another drive eg X:. This is analogous to
    > a Unix mount point.


    Yeah - a "Drive letter" - not an integrated part of the file tree.

    IOW, Windoze can't properly mount remote file systems where you want them -
    you can only do it by means of a "drive letter".

    NFS mounts on *nix can be anywhere you want them to be inside / . Samba
    "shared" files can only be on a "drive letter".


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 23, 2007
    #12
  13. On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:49:08 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

    >>> Your NFS babble has nothing to do with the poster questions relating to XP
    >>> file sharing .....

    >>
    >> I didn't say it did.
    >>

    > No, you went off at your usual tangent....


    Absolutely right!

    And why not let the poor Windows user know about a yet more excellent way!


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 23, 2007
    #13
  14. Murray Symon Guest

    On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:28:13 +1200, Dianthus Mimulus wrote:

    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:54:06 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >>> How can you do that using Windoze?
    >>>

    >> To a Windows machine a Samba file share looks like a share from another
    >> Windows machine. It appears as another drive eg X:. This is analogous to
    >> a Unix mount point.

    >
    > Yeah - a "Drive letter" - not an integrated part of the file tree.
    >
    > IOW, Windoze can't properly mount remote file systems where you want them
    > - you can only do it by means of a "drive letter".
    >
    > NFS mounts on *nix can be anywhere you want them to be inside / . Samba
    > "shared" files can only be on a "drive letter".


    Maybe you should read "man mount"?
     
    Murray Symon, Mar 23, 2007
    #14
  15. Enkidu Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:54:06 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >>> How can you do that using Windoze?
    >>>

    >> To a Windows machine a Samba file share looks like a share from another
    >> Windows machine. It appears as another drive eg X:. This is analogous to
    >> a Unix mount point.

    >
    > Yeah - a "Drive letter" - not an integrated part of the file tree.
    >
    > IOW, Windoze can't properly mount remote file systems where you want them -
    > you can only do it by means of a "drive letter".
    >

    Makes no difference in practise.
    >
    > NFS mounts on *nix can be anywhere you want them to be inside / . Samba
    > "shared" files can only be on a "drive letter".
    >

    No, if I share a directory under Windows, I can access it or Windows
    either by a drive letter (if I map it) or I can access it directly as in
    \\server\blah\blah... With DFS I can mount a remote file system on any
    mount point.

    If I access the Samba share on a Unix system I can mount the Samba file
    system anywhere,

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Mar 24, 2007
    #15
  16. On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:30:28 +1200, Murray Symon wrote:

    >> NFS mounts on *nix can be anywhere you want them to be inside / . Samba
    >> "shared" files can only be on a "drive letter".

    >
    > Maybe you should read "man mount"?


    Why?

    Are you suggesting that you cannot mount NFS shares anywhere other than at / ?

    Or are you suggesting that you should use a Samba share instead of NFS?

    Surely the latter suggestion would be a last choice such as if all other
    options such as NFS or FTP or even HTTP were available - such as being in
    the unfortunate situation of <shudder> having to access files that are on a
    Windoze box!

    Samba is a good tool for supporting Windows users, but its purpose is to
    provide Windoze users with access to reliable file storage on *nix boxes,
    not for providing *nix users with access to files on *nix boxes.

    And there is the other question: Why still use M$ Windows when there are
    better options around - especially if those better options have greater
    reliability, security, and lower cost.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 24, 2007
    #16
  17. On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:50:43 +1200, Enkidu wrote:

    > If I access the Samba share on a Unix system I can mount the Samba file
    > system anywhere,


    Yes - but the question is why would you want to use a Samba share on a
    *nix box if you have better options such as NFS?

    Interestingly, you can get a very much faster assessment of the total space
    used in a user's personal "home" drive by getting remote access to their
    Windoze desktop and doing it there than you can if you access that
    directory directly (as in \\server\blah\blah\) and then do <ctrl>A and
    right click on something and select properties.

    The speed difference is noticeable - even tho' both server and Windows box
    are about the same distance away.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 24, 2007
    #17
  18. Enkidu Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:30:28 +1200, Murray Symon wrote:
    >
    >>> NFS mounts on *nix can be anywhere you want them to be inside / . Samba
    >>> "shared" files can only be on a "drive letter".

    >> Maybe you should read "man mount"?

    >
    > Why?
    >

    So that you understand some of the options.
    >
    > Are you suggesting that you cannot mount NFS shares anywhere other than at / ?
    >
    > Or are you suggesting that you should use a Samba share instead of NFS?
    >

    If you are dealing with a mixed environment, almost certainly. The OP
    had a working setup in Windows, so suggesting that he rip all that down
    and install linux is stupid. If it isn't broken don't fix it.
    >
    > Surely the latter suggestion would be a last choice such as if all other
    > options such as NFS or FTP or even HTTP were available - such as being in
    > the unfortunate situation of <shudder> having to access files that are on a
    > Windoze box!
    >

    That's what he was doing - successfully transferring files from Windows
    to Windows and that is what SMB was designed for.
    >
    > Samba is a good tool for supporting Windows users, but its purpose is to
    > provide Windoze users with access to reliable file storage on *nix boxes,
    > not for providing *nix users with access to files on *nix boxes.
    >

    If you have 10 Windows machines and 10 Unix machines wanting data from a
    Unix server, then Samba is the way to go, even on the Unix machines.
    >
    > And there is the other question: Why still use M$ Windows when there are
    > better options around - especially if those better options have greater
    > reliability, security, and lower cost.
    >

    The OP had a working Windows set up. Why change it? If he was setting up
    from scratch then maybe your advice would have some merit.

    Cheers,

    Cliff


    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Mar 24, 2007
    #18
  19. Enkidu Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:50:43 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> If I access the Samba share on a Unix system I can mount the Samba file
    >> system anywhere,

    >
    > Yes - but the question is why would you want to use a Samba share on a
    > *nix box if you have better options such as NFS?
    >

    Because I also need to access it from Windows boxes.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Mar 24, 2007
    #19
  20. broooooce Guest

    Dianthus Mimulus wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:30:28 +1200, Murray Symon wrote:
    >
    >>> NFS mounts on *nix can be anywhere you want them to be inside / . Samba
    >>> "shared" files can only be on a "drive letter".

    >> Maybe you should read "man mount"?

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Are you suggesting that you cannot mount NFS shares anywhere other than at / ?
    >
    > Or are you suggesting that you should use a Samba share instead of NFS?
    >

    You can do either, you just have to learn how,

    #mount -t smbfs -o username=username,password=password, uid=username,
    gid=samba //server/documents /mnt/documents
     
    broooooce, Mar 24, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Doug A Moller

    Need help with peer to peer no hub network

    Doug A Moller, Jun 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,782
  2. =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbEM=?=

    peer to peer linking and sharing

    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbEM=?=, Aug 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    710
    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbEM=?=
    Aug 23, 2004
  3. Milsnips

    peer to peer wireless networking question?

    Milsnips, May 6, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,598
    =?Utf-8?B?VGltbW8=?=
    Jul 30, 2005
  4. kendra

    peer to peer from business networking

    kendra, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    446
    JabberSmith
    Sep 17, 2003
  5. Peer networking basics

    , Mar 22, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    440
    dilberts_left_nut
    Mar 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page