Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Anyone Know Why Ubuntu Linux And SAMBA Don't Work With Windows 7?

There are innumerable cookbooks for allowing access to Windows 7 files from Ubuntu 10.04.  None of them seem to work.

I have heard it suggested that Microsoft intentionally broke the SAMBA interface.

There seems to be general agreement that SAMBA and Windows 7 are no longer on speaking terms.

I have been struggling long enough to be convinced that Linux has gone from a realistic alternative to Windows, to a realistic alternative to TRSDOS.  And I am not the average ignorant end-user.


Sam's Hideout said...

This is probably the explanation (from here

"However, smbfs is not compatible with security signatures, which are enabled by default and not recommended to disable on Windows Server 2003 and later. If a share is served by Windows Server 2003 or later, you should use cifs."

However, it looks like the cifs-utils package was first introduced in Ubuntu 10.10, so recommendations to install smbfs package won't work. I suspect you'll need to either: upgrade to at least Ubuntu 10.10, compile the cifs client from source (possibly non-trivial as this includes a kernel module), or live with a recent Samba smbclient, which you'll probably need to compile from source.


hga said...

While I certainly find Linux on the desktop a lot of trouble, I have to note that Ubuntu 10.4 is ancient and no longer supported (two years out of support for the desktop, a month for servers). Coming out half a year after Windows 7, with a code freeze sometime before its release, we can see why there wasn't quite enough time to deal with Microsoft's change. Although if the change goes back to Windows Server 2003 ... not sure. XP was the last version of Windows I wanted to touch, and I'm thankful I don't need it like you do.

w said...

You remember TRSDOS as well...I guess that makes both of us old.

Clayton Cramer said...

I agtee 10.04 is ancient. LinuxCNC was bundled with it.

Sigivald said...

This sort of thing is why, last year, I finally dumped Linux as my home file server, and just got a base Mac Mini and OSX Server.

Turns out I don't actually like playing sysadmin, especially for free on my own time.

Sam's Hideout said...

Windows Server 2003 is essentially Windows XP (released about a year after XP, as Microsoft Server OSes generally are). So XP probably didn't have security signatures enabled, but Vista probably did, but Vista was a relative failure in the market so most people probably didn't notice. Hence people started complaining with Windows 7; shortly afterwards Samba's cifs client kernel module replaced the ancient smbfs kernel module as the standard smb/cifs client.