"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:g2qik8$gku$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>
> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
> news:Pz34k.3177$3F5.2675@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "goarilla" <kevin.paulus@skynet.remove-this.be> wrote in message
>
>
>>> smbclient -L host (list shares)
>>> nmblookup -SM--workgroup <YOUR-WORKGROUP> (list master browser)
>>> mount -t smbfs -o user="usernam",password="password" \\host\share /mnt/
>>> point (mounts windows share if you can mount it as cifs)
>>
>> OK, let's try this again....and this time pay attention......
>
> That is the wrong attitude!

Wrong attitude?!

Dude, I have simply been looking for answers. And, I have been accused of
being a troll, mocked, lied to and generally told to piss off by people that
either (a) don't have a clue as to what the answers may actually be or (b)
are simply Linux Zealots who are too busy hating to offer a hand to someone
trying to make the switch to Linux.

There is definitely a wrong attitude in these Linux NGs....but it didn't
arrive with me.

>
>>
>> There are # of XP machines all connected to one router. This is called a
>> peer to peer network. There is no server.
>
> There is a "server", its the machine providing the share.
> M$ may call it something else but in this context it is a server.

In this context, as it was assummed by other Linux supporters in previous
posts that authentication must tale place via something like Active
Directory or a central server, I was trying to convey that there was no
central authority with which you needed to authenticate on the XP peer to
peer network.

>>
>> The XP machines share folders that ARE NOT PASSWORD PROTECTED.
>>
>> The Linux user does not know the names of all PCs on the p2p network, nor
>> does he know the names of all of the shares.
>
> What's P2P got to do with your previous posts?

A simple contraction of the term "peer to peer" as mentioned when describing
the ad hoc network earlier in the post......try and follow along please.

jim