“Samba 4 is the ambitious next version of the Samba suite that is being developed in parallel to the stable 3.0 series. The main emphasis in this branch is support for the Active Directory logon protocols used by Windows 2000 and above. With 3 years of development under our belt since Tridge first proposed a new Virtual File System layer for Samba3 (a project which eventually lead to our Active Directory efforts), it was felt that we should create something we could ‘show off’ to our users. This is a Technology Preview (TP), aimed at allowing users, managers and developers to see how we have progressed, and to invite feedback and support.”
Sweet.
Starting to look good.
Its going to make it much easyer to migrate over to Linux now. If and when they finish it(out of beta).
Its going to make it much easyer to migrate over to Linux now. If and when they finish it(out of beta).
Migrate in what way? Remember, this is to support Windows desktops.
[i]Remember, this is to support Windows desktops.>/i>
Not really. It’s a CIFS server. Windows interoperability is just a bonus feature.
Not really. It’s a CIFS server. Windows interoperability is just a bonus feature.
No. CIFS, SMB and Windows Networking are Microsoft and Windows networking technologies that are just about feasible to interact with and reverse engineer. That’s what Samba has always been about – Windows interoperability so you can run a non-Windows server.
To call it a bonus feature is just ludicrous quite frankly.
No. CIFS, SMB and Windows Networking are Microsoft and Windows networking technologies that are just about feasible to interact with and reverse engineer. That’s what Samba has always been about – Windows interoperability so you can run a non-Windows server.
To call it a bonus feature is just ludicrous quite frankly.
I used to use Samba for a small group of Linux desktops at home…since there was no central server (just shared directories on each desktop) this worked quite well. I also find it easier to share a printer via samba amongst Linux clients than using cups directly. I had problems with NFS, and Samba worked well enough.
No. CIFS, SMB and Windows Networking are Microsoft and Windows networking technologies that are just about feasible to interact with and reverse engineer
Excuse me, but I think he’s right and you’re wrong.
I read the Samba doc (which is very instructive) and IIRC, SMB is not a MS technology, it’s an IBM technology.
SMB is known and documented, but allows for extensions. And as you could guess, what has to be reverse engineered are the closed MS extensions. And I think the package of MS extensions + SMB is CIFS. So I see MS networking as yet another example of embrace and “extend”.
That’s what Samba has always been about – Windows interoperability so you can run a non-Windows server
I’m not so sure about that. It’s all in the Samba docs anyway. SMB implementation in Samba was always better than MS one IIRC, and even more advanced. It happens that SMB is used extensively in Windows, and that Samba wants to be interoperable with every implementations.
To call it a bonus feature is just ludicrous quite frankly
Given what I said above, I disagree. I still view it as a bonus feature.
Of course, the vision must have changed in Samba team, as MS implementation is the most used I guess (I did not say it’s the best).
I read the Samba doc (which is very instructive) and IIRC, SMB is not a MS technology, it’s an IBM technology.
If you’d read further you would have found out that it is an MS controlled technology that has had many significant enhancements and additions to it over the years – hence Samba 4 and Active Directory.
Nuff said.
If you’d read further you would have found out that it is an MS controlled technology that has had many significant enhancements and additions to it over the years – hence Samba 4 and Active Directory
These are the extensions I was talking about. Well, perhaps all of it is not extensions, but improvements in the base protocol itself.
One thing you say is news to me. I recall having read in the docs that SMB is not an MS controlled technology, but that MS is one of the companies on the board of the organisation that manages SMB.
You meant CIFS perhaps ?
I know already that Samba was heavily changed internally to support AD in Samba 4, as it was not possible in Samba 2 or 3.
NFS and CUPS are dead simple compared to samba, but whatever floats your boat. Throw in some yellowpages, or whatever its called these days and you get a nice sso on all your nix boxes
I thought there was a way to make Samba part of a domain now? Is AD more than a domain?