On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 00:25 -0400, Robert Myers wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:25 -0400, Robert Myers wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM, linux guy <linuxguy123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > I'm finding the online documentation for Samba to be umm... wanting. I'll > >> > post up a little HOWTO when I get my NAS going. > >> > > >> > >> Samba how-to's always have a short shelf-life, because Microsoft wants > >> to make it as hard as possible. > > ---- > > Yeah, the 'Official Samba 3 HowTo' has only been around since 2003 > > ---- > >> > >> In getting samba to work in tough situations, I invariably wound up > >> spending an awful lot of time reading packet sniffer output. > >> > >> I learned a lot about SMB, about networking, and about Windows, but, > >> in the end, it just wasn't worth the effort. > > ---- > > samba duplicates virtually the entire array of Windows services from > > Windows 95 share modes to member server in an AD forest so it can be > > daunting to set up for those that don't understand Windows on a sysadmin > > level. Samba4 though still alpha level is capable of being a domain > > controller in AD configuration. > > > > Whether it's worth the effort or not is always best for everyone to > > decide for themselves but the samba 'By Example' documentation is pretty > > much for those that have a scenario in mind and it provides a step by > > step implementation. The Official HowTo is an exhaustive reference of > > how/why it works. There's something for everyone. > > > > Well, since you're not everybody, maybe it would be best not to speak > as if you were. I don't have windows sysadmin knowledge and I don't > want it, so I have arranged it so that I can use mostly linux services > to get EVERYTHING done that's possible...if that's ok with you, sir. > > Ubuntu has never failed to work out of the box. Fedora has never > worked out of the box. ---- I switched to Ubuntu server and it's fine. You may be right that out of the box, Ubuntu worked for your scenario and Fedora didn't but considering the many thousands of configuration possibilities of samba, that doesn't actually surprise me or disappoint me. I certainly wouldn't draw any significant conclusions from a zero effort configuration. I have referred to myself as an integration specialist because I setup Linux servers that provide Linux/Windows/Macintosh signon via a single LDAP account/password and abstract the configuration so that the users' HOME directory is the same directory regardless of how they login to the network (Windows via Samba, Macintosh via Netatalk, Linux via NFS HOME directories, all 'automounted' via LDAP automounts). In essence, users get a 'roaming profile' regardless of which OS they use at any given moment. The point being that Samba like Macintosh, like Linux is reasonably flexible and can be used exceedingly well for Windows clients. For the record... I never once resorted to using a packet sniffer and can't imagine why anyone would want to do that when you have logs. And more to your point, I know a lot about SMB, networking and Windows and in the end, if I am dealing with Windows clients, it's always worth using Samba (Linux, not so much). Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
