Early adopters of Vista may notice that it will not connect to Samba share folders out of the box. This will be a bit of a pain for many enterprise customers. The technical reason is because Microsoft Vista’s default security policy is to only use NTLMv2 authentication. To get Vista to work with Samba follow this simple tutorial.
Get Vista and Samba to Work
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
104 Comments
2006-12-15 9:46 pm
2006-12-15 9:37 am
2006-12-15 10:08 am
-
2006-12-15 10:30 am
-
2006-12-15 10:33 am
2006-12-15 10:29 am
-
2006-12-15 11:28 am
-
2006-12-15 11:39 am
-
2006-12-15 11:43 am
-
2006-12-15 7:59 pm
2006-12-15 1:05 pm
2006-12-15 3:51 pm
-
2006-12-15 4:02 pm
-
2006-12-15 4:11 pm
-
-
2006-12-16 1:47 am
phoenixAnyway, I’m curious. Do you think that Windows SFU “copying”?
Whether it is or not, I applaud them for making it available.
Considering Windows Services for Unix uses a modified OpenBSD 3 install to provide all those services, yes it is copying.
And more power to them. -
2006-12-15 4:18 pm
-
-
2006-12-15 4:24 pm
-
2006-12-15 4:14 pm
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2006-12-15 4:19 pm
-
-
Great work on interoperability there, Novell !
Actually, it works just fine out of the box on openSuSE 10.1.
So, yeah… Rock on Novell.
NTLMv2 is a lot more secure.
Connecting out of the box is not an issue. I have 2 Vista RTM machines as well as 2 samba servers running Suse 10.1. The vista desktops connect fine with no extra configuration needed.
I like how MS just changes things with no regard for how it will affect users. Their attitude is not to acknowledge their competition at all. Regardless of the fact that many enterprise environments run mixed Windows / *NIX servers, MS acts as though only its own standards and ways of doing things matter. It’s this “do it our way or get lost” attitude that drove me away from MS products years ago. The best way to avoid this situation is to run a 100% *NIX shop and tell MS to take a hike.
Edited 2006-12-15 02:58
I don’t get it…
Microsoft released a more secure default.
You are free to change it, that is what the above link is about. You are even free to create custom disk images with a different setting. So who was frozen out and what standards were forced?
Microsoft does plenty of REAL things that cause REAL grief for both users and admins, we don’t need to invent our own to add to it.
I like how MS just changes things with no regard for how it will affect users.
Yeah. They only released NTLMv2 with NT 4.0 SP4.
“… starting with Windows 2000 SRP1, including Windows 2000 SP3, all versions of Windows XP and all versions of Windows Server 2003, NTLMv2 Session Security is always negotiated.”
Whats up with Samba being 6 years behind?
Whats up with Samba being 6 years behind?
Nobody would give them the specs?
Yeah. They only released NTLMv2 with NT 4.0 SP4.
And at Samba they released it with 3.0.0
Whats up with Samba being 6 years behind?
Well, you could point Samba developers to MS documentation specs so they won’t need to guess what is what.
The problem is that there are no usable specs. So if you’re bound to guess how everything works, you’re bound to be behind. Situation which could easily change if MS woulb release the specs.
p.s. Someone should mod entire article as bogus
Edited 2006-12-15 04:34
Well, you could point Samba developers to MS documentation specs so they won’t need to guess what is what
Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.
Or they could just keep up the great work, allowing places like mine to easily make files and home directories readily available to both Windows and Unix clients. All open source and free of charge I might add.
Samba does Windows shares it’s got to follow Windows standards, how could it develop something different and new and still do that.
Perhaps this is an area where the EU forcing MS to release documentation will help?
Mathman I agree totally
So … I say “Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.”
And I get modded down.
Yet many of you seem proud of the “accomplishments” of the Samba team.
So, make up your minds cultists. Is the fact that the Samba team spent 15 years copying Microsoft something to be proud of or something to be ashamed of, because I know for sure you go ballistic if I hint that Linux is copying Microsoft.
The Samba team reminds me of the art forgers who couldn’t come up with a unique idea to save their lives, but they can churn out perfect copies of the Mona Lisa.
Why not Vote?
Just put a checkbox beside one of these in your reply:
__ Yes, copying Microsft is the best thing FOSS does
__ No, copying Microsft is bad and not to be encouraged. Samba is something to be ashamed of.
Edited 2006-12-15 06:46
Wow, you’re right, there can only be these two choices. Thank you NotParker for presenting us with these honest, non-biased choices!
*roll eyes*
How can you say that Samba is copying Microsoft? Does Microsoft publish SMB servers that run on Unix/BSD/Linux? You should know, I’m sure you have Microsoft’s software catalogue on your bedside table…
I’ve got news for you: presenting the issue in such a simplistic manner will not fool anyone on this site. Better try something more, oh, I don’t know, subtle…
Does Microsoft publish SMB servers that run on Unix/BSD/Linux?
If you ever read up on SMB you’ll see that a lot of the codes are reserved for Xenix. Microsft used to own Xenix which was the Unix on x86 before Linux existed (see, still copying Microsoft).
But you haven’t answered my question.
Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?
Or would it have been better for the Samba team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than Microsofts.
I guess the answer is that they couldn’t come up with a better product so they kept copying.
Xenix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
NetBios/SMB/Xenix: http://www.protocols.com/pbook/ibm.htm
Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?
Or would it have been better for the Samba team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than Microsofts.
I guess the answer is that they couldn’t come up with a better product so they kept copying.
NotParker,your logic is a bit lacking.
Samba is devoted to enable interoperability with Windows.
If they wrote something better than SMB then who would write the other side on Windows? Microsoft?! Bhabhabhabhahahahaahha ….
As for Linux itself, we already have a number of filesharing solutions and much more. NFS comes to mind.
And it’s been around longer than Windows (I think, someone correct me if I’m wrong).
Yeah, that’s like saying “Why work on wine, a windows compatibility layer, when you could be working on a Linux compatibility layer for Linux that’s better than wine!”
This makes one thing very clear: Using Windows makes you stupid.
Edited 2006-12-15 08:33
lets not forget that microsoft did not even invent SMB, so they started playing copying, i guess they couldnt invent something better?
From NotParker:
//Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?
Or would it have been better for the Samba team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than Microsofts.//
From Redeeman:
lets not forget that microsoft did not even invent SMB
Exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block
“History
SMB was originally invented by Barry Feigenbaum at IBM”
So, NotParker, two questions for you:
“Is copying IBM by cloning IBM’s OS/2 File and Print Sharing and OS/2 Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?
Or would it have been better for the Microsoft team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than IBMs?”
Edited 2006-12-15 09:42
Death threats to +2.
The essence of the cult.
Edited 2006-12-15 15:41
There is an article on Slashdot lastnight asking why does everyone hate microsoft. You should read the comments that answer that question.
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/06/12/13/019241.shtml
If you ever read up on SMB you’ll see that a lot of the codes are reserved for Xenix. Microsft used to own Xenix which was the Unix on x86 before Linux existed (see, still copying Microsoft).
…after Microsoft had copied Unix. 🙂
But you haven’t answered my question.
I don’t answer loaded questions based on a logically fasle premise. Since your original premise (i.e. that developing Samba is copying MS) is false, then the question itself is nonsensical. Others have adroitly pointed this out already.
Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?
Writing a SMB server for *nix is *not* copying Windows. First of all, as others have mentioned, SMB was invented by IBM. Second, since Windows doesn’t have a free SMB server for *nix, then Samba can hardly be said to copy them.
Copying in itself is not a bad thing, otherwise Microsoft wouldn’t be doing it all the time! The basic principle of the Windows interface was copied from Mac OS, which itself as copied from the Xerox PARC’s experimental GUI desktops.
So, tell me NotParker, is it good for MS to copy other people’s ideas, or should they have spent their time developing something better?
“””Or would it have been better for the Samba team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than Microsofts.”””
You are intentionally missing the point of Samba.
No other protocol would achieve interoperability with out-of-the-box Windows machines.
We have file sharing protocols which are superior for the situation where Unix-like OSes need to talk to other Unix-like OSes. (CIFS + the extensions is one of them, I suppose.)
But for the case of Unix<->Windows interoperability, only Windows’ native protocol would be appropriate.
One can hardly expect random XP boxes to have Windows SFU installed.
Why do you pretend to miss that obvious point?
“””Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?”””
I should say that 15 years of dedication to interop between disparate OSes is a noble pursuit. If you disagree, what in the nine worlds are you doing here at OSNews?
But for the case of Unix<->Windows interoperability, only Windows’ native protocol would be appropriate.
One can hardly expect random XP boxes to have Windows SFU installed.
And why would they? Support for NFS or some other protocol could be made part of the standard deployment image.
“””
//One can hardly expect random XP boxes to have Windows SFU installed.//
And why would they? Support for NFS or some other protocol could be made part of the standard deployment image.
“””
Obviously, NFS would not be a good solution for Windows workstations needing to talk to Unix-like OSes. MS and POSIX filesystem semantics are different. (No great revelation, there, I hope!)
Plus, in case you haven’t noticed, the vast majority of Windows boxes in the world today are already deployed.
Similarly, IPP, while partially supported by XP out of the box, would be less satisfying to Windows users than browsing to the printer of their choice using native Windows protocols.
The above factors, and likely others, would seriously hinder effective interop, which is and was the objective.
BTW, so far as I know, line for line, the Samba code is less about the actual protocols, and more about effectively mapping semantics between two disparate worlds… something that NFS does not address because that was never its purpose.
It comes down to using the right tool (or protocol) for the job at hand.
Edited 2006-12-15 16:59
In honor of the death threat being modded to +2:
Does Microsoft publish SMB servers that run on Unix/BSD/Linux?
If you ever read up on SMB you’ll see that a lot of the codes are reserved for Xenix. Microsft used to own Xenix which was the Unix on x86 before Linux existed (see, still copying Microsoft).
But you haven’t answered my question.
Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?
Or would it have been better for the Samba team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than Microsofts.
I guess the answer is that they couldn’t come up with a better product so they kept copying.
Xenix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
NetBios/SMB/Xenix: http://www.protocols.com/pbook/ibm.htm
Edited 2006-12-15 16:06
Did you just copy and paste your response? Unbelievable!
I’ll repeat my questions with a bit more detail: can I buy a SMB server for *nix systems right now from Microsoft?
Don’t you think that it’s useful and important for *nix servers and Windows PC to interoperate?
Is Microsoft copying the basic principles of their GUI from Apple and Xerox a good thing, or should they have been better to spend their time doing something different?
“Don’t you think that it’s useful and important for *nix servers and Windows PC to interoperate?”
I’ll answer that one so we don’t have flames. Yes, it is very important. I admin for a software development company that develops cross-platform software. It is imperative all our Windows, Linux, *BSD and Sun boxes talk to each other.
“Is Microsoft copying the basic principles of their GUI from Apple and Xerox a good thing, or should they have been better to spend their time doing something different?”
That is a good thing as well, as it has helped the industry grow. One thing Microsoft with Windows did help to do was to bring home computing to the masses by making the GUI a bit better. It is not solely responsible of course, however it did have a major impact. I for one am glad they did not develop something different.
Edit: Fixed typos
Edited 2006-12-15 16:08
Is Microsoft copying the basic principles of their GUI from Apple and Xerox a good thing, or should they have been better to spend their time doing something different?
You are off topic pervert-boy.
Right, keep insulting me. That’ll help your trust rating!
And it is not off-topic to present a question based on a as yours in order to demonstrate how it is based on a false premise.
I do note, however, that you didn’t answer, implicitly admitting that your not-so-subtle ruse has failed.
Right, keep insulting me. That’ll help your trust rating!
As long as you mod death threats against me up I’d rather have a negative trust rating.
Not only did I not “mod up” any “death threats” against you, I haven’t even seen the post you’re refering to.
Dude, you’re really starting to sound delusional. You should chill a little.
Not only did I not “mod up” any “death threats” against you, I haven’t even seen the post you’re refering to.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16728&comment_id=192521
“In conclusion, it’s a good thing I can’t kill people with my thoughts.”
Thinking about killing someone because they made fun of Samba is evidence of irrational and delusional thinking.
Writing it down is a death threat.
Modding it up is acting like a willing accessory.
Since it is now at +1 and has been at zero and +2 that means 3 up mods at least.
Edited 2006-12-15 17:26
Well, I agree that the last line of the post was tasteless and immature. As such, I disapprove of such language. I did not mod it up, and if I had any points at the moment I would consider modding it down.
However, it is not a “death threat” by any reasonable measure. I order for something to be considered a death threat, one has to explicitly or implicitly state that they will make an attempt on someone else’s life, or hire someone to do so. Simply stating “I wish X was dead” isn’t sufficient to be considered a death threat.
In fact, it is *you* who should be careful, NotParker. This is a serious accusation you’re making. While I agree that the comment was indeed not very civil, claiming that it is a “death threat” could get *you* into legal trouble. If the person you’re falsely accusing of making a death threat chose to, they could actually file a complaint against you.
For your sake, you should seriously consider dropping this particular matter right now. Also, please note that this is not a threat, but merely a piece of advice.
However, it is not a “death threat” by any reasonable measure.
Yes. It is.
Yes. It is.
No, it isn’t. I’ve explained to you why. If you disagree, then argue your case.
If you really believe that this is a death threat, then notify the authorities. If you don’t notify them, but continue to claim that it was, in fact, a death threat, then *you* could be the target of legal action (again, this isn’t a threat, but advice you should follow to avoid getting into legal trouble).
In other words, put up or shut up.
Can I just put my vote forward for shut up. Thanks.
“””
Thinking about killing someone because they made fun of Samba is evidence of irrational and delusional thinking.
“””
For what it’s worth, nobody responded to my query about Voodoo… ;-P
“In conclusion, it’s a good thing I can’t kill people with my thoughts.”
Thinking about killing someone because they made fun of Samba is evidence of irrational and delusional thinking.
Last time I checked thinking was not prohibited. And there is no direct intention in that sentence. Case dismissed.
Writing it down is a death threat.
Arguing a bad case here.
Modding it up is acting like a willing accessory.
Well, I’m one of those that modded that comment up.
Why do I agree with it? Look at your todays comments. Well,… spamers could learn a lot from you and spam this world even more based on your instructions.
Sorry, if we all agree that you go away. Personally, I’m against modding up offensive comments like that one. But, since the person in question (yes, that would be you) is more or less even more offensive by default I can’t help my self not mod such comment up.
You’re rude, offensive and more or less always spewing non-sense without facts. You never answer to others, but always demand from others to answer your questions. You’re always accusing others of hypocracy, zealotry, etc., but never look in the mirror. How is that you expect to be treated normally?
Look at this:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16728&comment_id=192449
It is your comment and rated with 5. I’m also one of those who modded you up. Why? Because, there was no non-sense, true facts and one baseless a bit trolling (about being 6 years behind) question which was answered in my answer to you.
NTLMv2 was implemented in samba 3.0.0.
I’m sure you have Microsoft’s software catalogue on your bedside table…
I don’t think you’ll find MS have a software catalogue.
Anyone who has a complete list of all the software they have ever released is violating their “IP” and giving away trade secrets.
Besides which, Sears & Roebuck are probably violating an MS patent on a “method of storing information on glossy paper in an ordered manner”.
“””How can you say that Samba is copying Microsoft?”””
Careful, there. He’s trying to maneuver you into arguing that copying good ideas from competitors is a bad thing. How silly. Excluding ideas because they originate with the competition is as limiting as if they had a patent on it, except they don’t have to go to the trouble of getting the patent.
However, in this case, NotParker’s original statement:
“””
So … I say “Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.
“””
is, very literally, total nonsense. Unless one is willing to argue that interoperability between OSes is a bad and useless thing (thereby painting Samba as a bad and useless project) it makes no sense whatsoever to say such a thing. I don’t think that Bruce is willing to argue that interoperability is bad and useless. (Though he may surprise me.)
His statement could be made against any one of a number of other projects and there would be room for doubt.
But in this particular case, the only possible reason to make such a statement is to be controversial for the sake of being controversial.
Note how I deftly skirted the ‘T’ word. 😉
-Steve
Edited 2006-12-15 13:49
I don’t think that Bruce is willing to argue that interoperability is bad and useless. (Though he may surprise me.)
Bruce? Who’s Bruce?
Oh, that Bruce.
I’m sure you have Microsoft’s software catalogue on your bedside table…
Yeh, probably next to a big bottle of lotion and a box of tissues.
“””Yeh, probably next to a big bottle of lotion and a box of tissues.”””
What’s wrong with that?^W^W^W^W I mean, now, now. No need to stoop to that level. 😉
Seriously, though. Let’s stick to the high ground.
Well, I’ve usually saved such good natured posts for my good buddy LIP, but jesus christ I just need to come out and say it here. You Not Parker my friend are a grade A moron. I see you go on and on and on with this nonsense. I mean, what is this 5th grade? Wait man, I have a better one: how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife? Or how about this little gem: retard says what.
So yeah, just put a check by your reply:
__ Not Parker needs to grow up.
__ Not Parker needs to go away.
__ Not Parker needs to be sterilized so as not to damage the gene pool any more than his parents already have.
Anyhow, contrary to what some of the more mentally challenged os news readers might tell you, Microsoft did not invent the concept of sharing a remote filesystem over a network. But feel free to live with that little delusion if it suits your fancy. But heck, even if Linux or whatever was a complete replica of Microsoft’s operating system I’d have no problem with that. A. Linux distributions tend to be free. B. Linux distributions tend to be open source.
And honestly, I fail to see how appreciating all the hard work the samba team has put in to make my life easier makes me some sort of cultist. Yes, samba is free software. No, that does not mean that by simply using it I’m forced to subscribe to some hardline free software stance a la RMS. I mean, you might as well tell me I’m some sort of fanatic for being happy that the casino I tend to hang out in just sent me $50 bucks, some coupons for free food and drinks, and a free hotel room.
In conclusion, it’s a good thing I can’t kill people with my thoughts.
5+ (shame I can mod you for one only)
God,… last weeks I really hope there will be article about OS trolls on OSNews.
Not that it would do any good. At least comments like this one would be on topic. It was bad with previous troll, but NotParker goes beyond annoyance. Beside the fact that OSNews ratings improved on constant bitchin’ something should be done in this side too.
And the most annoying thing is they always demand answering their questions without answering single question of yours like today (fortunately as soon as comment is modded down it prevents Reply, otherwise I would be feeding the troll out of sheer anger. Thanks, OSNews for implementing this specific mode).
You get modded down because you’re an idiot.
You get modded down because you’re an idiot.
This is the way it works.
1) I comment with something straightforward and factual.
2) Then the cult chimes in with a bunch of attacks on Microsoft that prove how stupid they are.
3) I correct them
4) I get attacked and modded down.
5) I make a humorous snotty reply that enrages the cult because they have no sense of humor
6) I get modded down and attacked and threatened with death (new). Or the pervert archiesteel tells me to “Suck It”. (old)
Its kind of pathetic that this: “Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.” gets modded to -4 and will probably make -5, while this: “In conclusion, it’s a good thing I can’t kill people with my thoughts.” only rates a 0.
Humor = -4
Death threats = 0
The cult reaches a new low!
Edited 2006-12-15 08:05
Wise up.
Edited 2006-12-15 12:49
I comment with something straightforward and factual.
Actually, you ask a question based on a false premise, i.e. Samba is copying Microsoft. (It’s not.)
But that’s not the reason you get modded down. The reason you get modded down (in these posts at least) is that you call a whole bunch of people you have never met “cultists”, just because they disagree with you.
Oh, and “death threats”? Get real.
If you really fear for your life, perhaps you can write to the OSNews editors again and warn them of the situation…hopefully you’ll have better luck than next time! 🙂
“””Oh, and “death threats”? Get real.”””
Hey Archie, do think there’s anything to Voodoo?
Just kidding! 😉
-Steve
This is the way it works.
Let disect how it works
1) I comment with something straightforward and factual.
And you get modded 5.
2) Then the cult chimes in with a bunch of attacks on Microsoft that prove how stupid they are.
Actually the first attack was made by you on my answer. And it was made on Samba.
3) I correct them
No, you were corrected. SMB is IBM protocol. NTLMv2 was in samba 3.0.0
4) I get attacked and modded down.
No, you got attacked after you attacked with non-sense
5) I make a humorous snotty reply that enrages the cult because they have no sense of humor
Obviously you’re the only person here who understands your humor.
6) I get modded down and attacked and threatened with death (new). Or the pervert archiesteel tells me to “Suck It”. (old)
Its kind of pathetic that this: “Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.” gets modded to -4 and will probably make -5, while this: “In conclusion, it’s a good thing I can’t kill people with my thoughts.” only rates a 0.
First one was not humor, only false claim, was disputed soon as stated that in basis MS is the one copying it from IBM for 15 or so years.
Second one, Maybe, but since you are in question… I can’t help but agree.
Humor = -4
Humor was where in that sentence?
Death threats = 0
Death threat was where? All I see is a wishful thinking and thinking is not prohibited.
The cult reaches a new low!
Who/what is this cult? Do I need to enlist? Or am I already enlisted?
“””Who/what is this cult? Do I need to enlist? Or am I already enlisted?”””
I think it’s an opt-out list.
You’re there by default, and can never get off, as long as NP lives and breathes.
HTH,
Steve 😉
Edited 2006-12-15 21:31
Just in case you missed the questionnaire:
So … I say “Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.”
And I get modded down.
Yet many of you seem proud of the “accomplishments” of the Samba team.
So, make up your minds cultists. Is the fact that the Samba team spent 15 years copying Microsoft something to be proud of or something to be ashamed of, because I know for sure you go ballistic if I hint that Linux is copying Microsoft.
The Samba team reminds me of the art forgers who couldn’t come up with a unique idea to save their lives, but they can churn out perfect copies of the Mona Lisa.
Why not Vote?
Just put a checkbox beside one of these in your reply:
__ Yes, copying Microsft is the best thing FOSS does
__ No, copying Microsft is bad and not to be encouraged. Samba is something to be ashamed of.
Samba is essential for Windows nix* interoperability. Most think that is a good thing, developing systems that allow interoperability isn’t simply copying MS, its about making systems that work, which people can use to do their work, entertain themselves etc.
Maybe everything that happens in the computing world is always centred around MS (or even FOSS). I once read the slogan “theory is when you have ideas, ideology is when ideas have you” I believe this is true. It applies to some Linux Zealots and definitely applies to a certain troll. I think when said troll gets modded down to invisible maybe he should be ignored. Let try not to feed the troll.
Damn just fed it
Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.
Or maybe Microsoft could publish their own SMB software for Linux?
What, you don’t want Linux and Microsoft computers to talk to each other? You’ll afraid that Linux computer will morally corrupt other PCs away from the true Church of Microsoft if they share files and printers with them?
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you say things like that? If that isn’t trolling, then I don’t know what is.
What, you don’t want Linux and Microsoft computers to talk to each other? You’ll afraid that Linux computer will morally corrupt other PCs away from the true Church of Microsoft if they share files and printers with them?
Indeed. People who want to force stuff on others should learn that if foo has any value then you won’t need to force it on them.
Edited 2006-12-15 14:30
Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.
What GrotParker misses here is the history of SMB
SMB (Server Message Blocks) is a protocol developed by IBM and made open as a protocol by them. MS took this and started on its EEE program (Embrace, Extend and Extinguish). It changed its use of the protocol to make it incompatible with other OS’s using SMB. It was as response to this that SAMBA was started.
MS renamed its use of SMB to CIFS (Common Internet File System) which like the “Holy Roman Empire’ which was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire, is neither Common, Internet related nor a File System.
MS did for a while join in a common forum with IBM and other companies and software providers including SAMBA on CIFS but I gather that this did not survive long as MS was clearly not interested in a common standard specification.
MS went on to incorporate Kerberos (developed by MIT) and LDAP (developed at U. Penn) and to then make their use of these open protocols incompatible with the standard. They called this grab and conversion of open standards into closed, secret and proprietary protocols Active Directory.
So we see that the the only way for non-MS OS’s, be they FOSS or proprietary, to communicate MS systems is for very brilliant people like Tridge to reverse engineer the perversions and deliberate incompatibilities introduced into open standards by Microsoft
Edited 2006-12-15 13:39
So we see that the the only way for non-MS OS’s, be they FOSS or proprietary, to communicate MS systems is for very brilliant people like Tridge to reverse engineer the perversions and deliberate incompatibilities introduced into open standards by Microsoft.
Untrue. NFS was/is an option as was/is building an installable client like Novell and others have.
“Whats up with Samba being 6 years behind?”
It’s not, it can do NTLMv2 just fine. Why this isn’t mentioned in the article is anyone’s guess.
I’m not sure that I remember correctly the details, but with passwords under eight characters LM & NTLM are both easily crackable because of a weakness in the protocols. Also, LM has others weaknesses related to the fact that it’s case insensitive by nature (algorithm is weaker).
So, the use of NTLMv2 by default is a good thing and it’s not hard to configure this in Samba.
Not quite. LM, in addition to being case insensitive, splits passwords into two 7 character passwords making them very easy to crack. I don’t know about what weaknesses are in NTLM. I’m sure there are some though or there wouldn’t be NTLMv2
Edited 2006-12-16 05:06
And you choose to not acknowledge that Microsoft does actually make non-mainstream products geared towards getting Windows and Unix to interoperate. They even have a lot of custom apps out there that many corporations use for this sole purpose.
“The best way to avoid this situation is to run a 100% *NIX shop and tell MS to take a hike.”
The best way to run your business into the ground is with an all or nothing attitude like that.
I’ve had a gentoo file server run for over a year with the same smb.conf, and Vista connected to it just fine. No tinkering.
Too late to edit my first post. I just verified it works without issue on RHEL 4 as well. What was/is supposedly the whole problem?
Mr. “c” wanted a little PageRank boost for hist blog so he submitted his Samba tutorial to OSNews
> 1. Open the Run command and type “secpol.msc”
Zzzzzzz.
It’s not that it’s difficult to do, it’s that it is impossible to know.
Start > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Local Security Policy
That will take you to secpol.msc in Windows XP Professional, IRRC this doesn’t work in XP Home so I assume that Vista Home Crippleware edition won’t have that feature either.
Oh and I just changed my security policy to use NTLMv2 on XP and it works fine with my Debian file server.
And SVJN wrote a similar article, but he recommended to update the SAMBA servers
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4434907782.html
And SVJN wrote a similar article, but he recommended to update the SAMBA servers