Slashdot Mirror
Samba 3.0.0RC1 Released
dook43 writes "Samba 3.0.0 RC1 has been released as of 8/16. Probably the most important new feature is its Active Directory support, but the rest of the new features can be found at the website."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Having the Active Directory support is really a bug feature, as I had real big problems with authenticating a Linux Client in an AD server .. I hope that this issue will be solved in Samba 3 ..
Way to Go Samba!
I've been checking out a win2003 AD install for a client lately. A fairly fast workstation(2.4ghz) The creating of SID's thingy is soooo slow. My feeling is that the whole Active Directory is not mature yet.
my social life is pretty much in
I've installed the "unstable" samba 3.0RC1 packages under my Debian 2.4.20 system and I have to say, it works pretty well.
I've only experienced a few cases of "lock outs" of all clients, the first time because the init script didden't sucessfully kill all smbd's before starting new ones and the second time... Who knows, a restart of it helped fine anyway.
Other than that it seems pretty good for me with W98/W2K/XP Pro clients using different laguages, except for some random slowdowns in access to it but nothing major.
Also, that build is compiled with GCC-3.3 if anyone's interested in that.
My brain doesn't have the neural paths to understand some unix documentation, including samba, many man pages, etc. They seem to be produced from the old IBM school that says that the documentation should be for people that already is expert on the topic.
And don't forget all those switchs that are platform dependent, remember the source code is the documentation.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
Since some versions of Windows acting as an SMB server actually limit the number of allowed connections (that's Microsoft's Licensing for you), a Windows port of Samba actually wouldn't be that crazy of an idea for certain configurations.
Depends on the team. What some people release as "just an RC" others release as final and still others hold back as alpha or beta. Saying "release candidates are always garbage" takes nothing into account wrt the release management style of the programming team in question.
Now, if you had something to say about the quality of the Samba team's RC releases in particular, that'd be worthwhile -- but given how long the Samba 3 *betas* (not RCs, mind you, betas) have been stable, I doubt you'd be saying much the same thing.
...MS agrees with agrees with everyone else in a public forum on a standard before implementation. Until then, we're reverse engineering and always behind the curve - by design.
Except there are many situations where it is impossible for everyone to just go ahead and install linux. I'm all for running linux, but in the "real world" people still run windows. If I can install a linux server running headless in the corner of a small office handling all of the file sharing/printing needs of that office, I'm happy. Programs like samba are important to show people that linux is a good operating system to use, even if it is just serving files.
Doesn't the creation of Linux tools for interfacing with Windows just further validate a needlessly Microsoftian System?
You don't have to install it Richard. For those of us with jobs to do however, this is a big step forward.
NFS is fine and all, but its limited to really unixy networking.
That said Active directory actively puzzles me (as does LDAP). I guess its back to the books again. I guess my windoze knowledge never did advance much beyond NT4.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
On a small scale, it seems that such crossover projects hurt Linux. On a large scale, however, the picture is quite different.
Anyone who has administered large numbers of computers knows that sweeping changes are nearly impossible to execute. This is not due to technological restrictions, but rather those of the social variety: people don't like change, and require help in adapting. They need a period of migration.
If there is no way to migrate, large scale deployments of Linux will be avoided-- it simply costs too much to change things without a smooth transition.
For this reason, Samba does not hurt Linux. It should certainly be noted also that Samba actually does alot of Windows networking things faster than Windows it self-- there are benchmarks kicking around to this effect.
So not only does Samba allow easy migration, but it allows interoperability between platforms and a superior solution to existing applications.
~geogeek
I think you're trolling, but I'll answer anyway. First of all, Active Directory is a Microsoft-specific directory services protocol, it's not an open specification that the Samba folks can go and download and implement. If it weren't for the Samba people, your only option would have been to purchase Windows 2000/03 Server for Active Directory support.
Furthermore, you've clearly never reverse-engineered a protocol before. Since Microsoft doesn't release specifications for Active Directory interactions, the Samba team has to pretty much capture thousands of packets as a workstation logs in, then logs out, then logs in, then logs out, etc. and stare at the data for weeks or months to figure out how to emulate the AD logon. And then they have to do this for domain discovery, resource sharing, and all the other operations that AD supports. To do this for an entire suite of functionality can take years.
Frankly, I'm surprised and pleased that they've managed to build the excellent support they have for MS' network protocols, and I think the Samba team deserves some congratulations. Thanks and keep up the good work!
One of the steps towards linux-only is getting the servers on linux. Linux servers are becoming very popular, but that doesn't mean that every place has them yet, let alone linux workstations.
Many IT departments have already replaced some (or all) windows servers with linux servers, running Samba to provide the same services to their workstations. If Samba didn't exist, they wouldn't be switching their servers to it, since it would be incompatible with their existing windows servers. Nobody is going to upgrade if it means they lose features (namely, all the features samba provides).
There is just beginning to be a move towards linux on the desktop, and there have been a few articles on /. about it recently. My personal view is that it's not quite there yet, but close. I just work at a small company, but likely within a year I will have linux on the desktops. Some companies are beginning to roll out linux workstations, but not that many. And certainly not many enterprises.
You even say it yourself:
I've already gone 100% Linux on any networks I can.
Why not all of them? Without samba, it would basically be either 100% linux networks, or 0% linux networks. At the most, linux would be limited to being a router, NAS, webserver, etc.. which isn't bad, but it's leaving a monopoly on a fairly critical service (authentication) to one platform.
Speak before you think
pGina does essentially what you describe. It replace GINA and allows MS boxes to authenticate directly against an LDAPv3 server. But people who understand this stuff much better than myself tell me that this is not really a great solution. GINA is a fairly superficial authentication component, and replacing it doesn't make some of the more subtle bits fit together. Modifying the LSA (Local Security Authority) would be necessary to do the job properly. But, not surprisingly, documentation for it is not forthcoming.
Samba isn't about creating a new 'innovative' network file system - it's about a tool for interoperating with the widest spread legacy protocol out there. And if you have noticed, MS isn't exactly keen on adopting any of the innovative open source ones like OpenAFS or CODA etc.
There are plenty of innovative open source protcols out there, but how do you expect them to be adopted when just about everybody else (ie MS) won't use them? And in the meantime you'd deny the usefulness of Samba?
It's a chicken and egg situation, and Samba breaks that. Samba allows Unix/Linux/*BSD to interoperate with Windows networks. Then once open source stuff is installed widely, then you can start using other open standards.
Why, oh why chunk everything into one huge and fumbly command? I find "net ???" on Windows to be a pain in the arse to use and usually end up going through several 'net help blah' sessions when looking for how to do something.
Keep smbpasswd separate. You can still chunk it by prefixing smb-related commands with "smb" (hit [tab] to see the list of commands and start with smb). Not good, or what? I think it's fine.