On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 17:07 +0930, Tim wrote: > Tim: > >> I found it easier to configure Samba to use normal DNS style > >> resolution, rather than have yet another file to configure (the > >> lmhosts file). > > Anne Wilson: > > What exactly do you mean by 'normal DNS style'? > > On Linux, just about all networking things (e.g. mail, remote access to > a shell, X display, etc.), usually makes use of the Domain Name System > to resolve names and addresses. It can do that by making use of a local > hosts file, or a DNS server. > > Since you've already got that system in place (or probably should do), > it makes little sense to have to manage yet another separate thing that > does almost the same thing, especially if you have things which will get > different addresses from time to time. If you have working DNS, then > all other services should really "just work". > > The origins of SMB predates the common use of TCP/IP and DNS in a LAN, > hence why it has other methods, and used to (if it doesn't still) > default to using other techniques. For Samba, you'd change the order of > things it uses to try and resolve names, to put DNS ahead of other > techniques. > > There's a similar set of circumstances for Linux networking, if you look > at the nsswitch.conf file, you can change how your box resolves names. > The usual default is to first try the hosts file, then do a DNS lookup, > and there's other options, as well. > I don't know about the rest of your content here, but TCP/IP predates SMB by nearly 20 years. TCP/IP wasn't used on DOS machines perhaps, although since most were using networking in offices via various wired protocols, and were prior to 1992 (the genesis of SMB), I think that to say it predates the common use of TCP/IP is a bit misleading. Also SMB is a file serving process or protocol, not a networking protocol which TCP/IP is. Regards, Les H -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
