Posted
by
Hemos
from the hey-now-get-yer-fileserver-on dept.
GTO-Crank writes "Here's the changlog with all the fixes, enhancments, and sorce code for the new release of Samba 2.2.5. Also worth taking a look is this tutorial called "Using an LDAP directory for Samba authentication", and this tutorial called "Using Samba as a primary domain controller"."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
This is just a minor update by the looks of the change log, nothing much there for Linux users. A few compile fixes etc.. for HP/SUN users (who probably account for the majority of samba relient peoples)
Isn't freshmeat the place for this kinda anouncement , especially seeing as 2.2.5 was release 6 days ago!
Probably not the right place to ask. But does anyone know how to get XP folder sync working properly when using a samba server? Is it possible? (It somewhat works without any special conf, but it gives many errors)
I don't work for IBM and don't have first hand experience with their services setting up web sites, but I suspect that they know how to set up a capable high traffic web site (didn't they do the Olympics a while back?)
OTOH, if I'm correct, that leaves two other options:
someone powerful is deliberately Slashdotting that article;
a heck of a lot of people are genuinely ininterested in learning how to use Samba as a PDC.
It's not that no one at IBM knows how to set up a high-volume site. IBM just has poor management. They don't realize that something like this reflects on them more than advertisements.
A lot of people want to use Samba as a PDC. Now that we have Mozilla and Open Office and Samba DCs, there are only a few more steps to eliminating Microsoft products from business offices. I'm not against Microsoft, but they don't serve their customers very well.
If you're eliminating Microsoft products, why do you need samba?:)
I know you were being funny, but I've asked the same question: Why use Samba to serve Linux files to Windows PCs? Why not use NFS on the Windows PCs to reach those Linux files? Apparantly that's not a good idea. It's even in the NFS HowTo [ibiblio.org]: "[the NFS How To] will also not cover PC-NFS, which is considered obsolete (users are encouraged to use Samba to share files with PC's)"
I would really appreciate any pointers to an open (GPL, BSD, whatever) NFS client for Windows, as I'd much rather go that route. Google [google.com] searches [google.com] turn up "free" demos of commercial software; the only open client I can find is PC-NFS, which is depricated (although I may try it anyway).
Can anyone please explain why NFS on Windows is such a "bad idea" -- or did Samba simply kill PC-NFS? Is it a better idea now, in the face of M$ patents threatening to kill Samba?
I think the orginal poster ment, if you are eliminating Microsoft products, why would you still have Windows PCs to share files from Samba?
Because we're still eliminating Microsoft products, we haven't eliminated them yet.
You could be doing, NFS/CODA between all your Linux workstations.
Exactly! And I want the Windows PCs to use the same protocols as the rest of the network. I don't want to force the network to conform to the minority Windows clients, I want the Windows clients to conform to the network! You're making my case for me -- thanks.
I think you answered the question already. Other clients, such as NFS, are too immature on Windows. Maybe they gave up in the face of Samba. I'd guess Samba has an edge over anything else on Windows, because it requires very little special set-up on the client-side.
The practical answer to your question is that almost every NFS implementation for windows is slow, buggy, and expensive while SAMBA for most unixes is fast, stable, and free.
On the technical side I would even offer the opinion that CIFS (SMB) is a better file sharing protocol than NFS. For one thing, it is MUCH easier to secure.
Unfortunately, for all its ease of use NFS is a pretty crappy way to share files, even under unix. All those people who whine constantly about replacing the perfectly reasonable X server should really be complaining about replacing NFS.
I have a feeling that all those whiners are single desktop users who never get the idea of network computing.
So, in a pure Unix network, would you run SMB? Or what? I'd really like to know what you use to share files in a pure Unix environment. Outland Traveller? Anyone?
I think you're making the mistake that simply because something is the most popular solution, it is therefore ideal.
I didn't say NFS wasn't entrenched everywhere, I said that it sucked. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Nor did I claim that there was a good alternative, but the lack of alternatives doesn't make NFS suck less. It still sucks exactly as much.
Filesystems like Coda have promise but are still immature. I personally would love it if Linux supported SMB as a filesystem interface like it is on most other platforms. Instead we have to use an ftp-like client. I'm very glad that the client exists in the first place, of course, but it would need to be implemented as a filesystem in order to replace NFS.
OK, but you didn't answer my question: What do you use to share files in a pure Unix environement? Or do you use NFS like everybody else, even though it sucks?:-)
In a pure Unix shop NFS is great for diskless boxen (and about your only choice for some) now if you want to get something done try Coda it rocks there is something about be able to get to your files on the network server on a disconnected laptop and a disk based cache does wonders to migrating network latencys away from the interactive side (read CAD shops)
Saw this on freshmeat a while ago. (Score:2)
A few compile fixes etc.. for HP/SUN users (who probably account for the majority of samba relient peoples)
Isn't freshmeat the place for this kinda anouncement , especially seeing as 2.2.5 was release 6 days ago!
Re:Saw this on freshmeat a while ago. (Score:1)
Sync (Score:1, Offtopic)
IBM is slashdotted? (Score:1, Troll)
IBM's article about using Samba as a Windows Primary Domain Controller is Slashdotted. Not a good advertisement for IBM or DB2, is it?
To any IBM engineers who read this: I suggest you learn how to set up a high volume web server from the Slashdot people.
Re:IBM is slashdotted? (Score:2)
I don't work for IBM and don't have first hand experience with their services setting up web sites, but I suspect that they know how to set up a capable high traffic web site (didn't they do the Olympics a while back?)
OTOH, if I'm correct, that leaves two other options:
- someone powerful is deliberately Slashdotting that article;
- a heck of a lot of people are genuinely ininterested in learning how to use Samba as a PDC.
Take your pick:)IBM just has poor management. (Score:1)
A lot of people want to use Samba as a PDC. Now that we have Mozilla and Open Office and Samba DCs, there are only a few more steps to eliminating Microsoft products from business offices. I'm not against Microsoft, but they don't serve their customers very well.
Re:IBM just has poor management. (Score:1)
Re:IBM just has poor management. (Score:3, Interesting)
I would really appreciate any pointers to an open (GPL, BSD, whatever) NFS client for Windows, as I'd much rather go that route. Google [google.com] searches [google.com] turn up "free" demos of commercial software; the only open client I can find is PC-NFS, which is depricated (although I may try it anyway).
Can anyone please explain why NFS on Windows is such a "bad idea" -- or did Samba simply kill PC-NFS? Is it a better idea now, in the face of M$ patents threatening to kill Samba?
Re:IBM just has poor management. (Score:2)
You could be doing, NFS/CODA between all your Linux workstations.
Re:IBM just has poor management. (Score:2)
Re:IBM just has poor management. (Score:1)
Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows (Score:3, Insightful)
On the technical side I would even offer the opinion that CIFS (SMB) is a better file sharing protocol than NFS. For one thing, it is MUCH easier to secure.
Unfortunately, for all its ease of use NFS is a pretty crappy way to share files, even under unix. All those people who whine constantly about replacing the perfectly reasonable X server should really be complaining about replacing NFS.
I have a feeling that all those whiners are single desktop users who never get the idea of network computing.
Re:Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows (Score:2)
So, in a pure Unix network, would you run SMB? Or what? I'd really like to know what you use to share files in a pure Unix environment. Outland Traveller? Anyone?
Re:Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows (Score:2)
I didn't say NFS wasn't entrenched everywhere, I said that it sucked. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Nor did I claim that there was a good alternative, but the lack of alternatives doesn't make NFS suck less. It still sucks exactly as much.
Filesystems like Coda have promise but are still immature. I personally would love it if Linux supported SMB as a filesystem interface like it is on most other platforms. Instead we have to use an ftp-like client. I'm very glad that the client exists in the first place, of course, but it would need to be implemented as a filesystem in order to replace NFS.
Re:Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows (Score:1)
Might be worthing reading 'man mount'
Re:Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows (Score:1)
Re:Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows (Score:2)
Re:Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows (Score:1)
Re:Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows (Score:1)
In the real world, you must go slow. (Score:1)
Re:IBM is slashdotted? (Score:1)
3. The site works fine, but there is a bad hop somewhere between ibm and the original poster. I vote 3, since it works fine for me.