Slashdot Mirror
Integrating Linux into a Windows Network?
Di0medies asks: "I work for a some-what small non-profit organization that uses a windows-based network. We currently have 6 servers supporting about 25 local domain users and about 25 remote users and we're planning on migrating from Server 2000 to Server 2003 in a month or so. Being a non-profit, we're always a little tight on cash and considering Microsoft charges ungodly amounts of money for server software, migrating portions of the network to Linux leaves more cash available for other IT goodies (like a new high-capacity file server!) and also adds more stability and security to the network. All of this depends on how well a Linux server will work on a Windows network. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding Linux integration? Can Windows and Linux be made to play well together? Is there anything out there to add limited Active Directory support to Linux?"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=fire fox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=linux+a ctive+directory&btnG=Search
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
The word is "samba." Samba will more or less allow a Linux server to fully integrate intoa Windows network. I would suggest that, if you are a Linux novice, you leave domain control on Windows and just use Linux as a workhorse. Time enough to move everything to Linux when you're more comfortable with Linux.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I've done similar things in the past and currently I run my print and file servers on Linux quite seamlessly. All of the Windows admins and users don't know any different.
Samba + PAM + CUPS gives you integrated authentication, SMB/CIFS file serving (Windows file sharing protocol), as well as SMB and IPP printing.
I don't know of any tutorials off the top of my head but Google gave me all I needed to figure it out.
First you need to learn how to google so that you can ask more sensible concise questions
/.
You didn't specify if this is servers or workstations. Didn't specify all or just yours. Come on man, do some research before you post to
I work for a some-what small non-profit organization ...
You work for a non-profit organization and it's shelling out contribution money for Microsoft products? You are wasting money that has been given to you in good faith by countless people. Christ, remind me never to give money to your wasteful organization. I'll save my money for a group that doesn't turn my contributions over to an illegal monopoly.
People, this is Slashdot, not the New York Times. This is an "Ask Slashdot" item. Must we tell someone to google it every goddamn time something is posted?
For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?
I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.
Sorry about that. My bad.
This is Slashdot, not the New York Times. And this is an "Ask Slashdot" item. Must we tell someone to google it every goddamn time something is posted?
For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?
I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.
You have, what, 50 users? Why deal with the licensing headaches from Win* server at all? Linux (running Samba) makes a great Domain Controller. Add another Linux/Samba for SAN/NAS. Throw in one more for a print server. I don't know too much about mail on Linux, but I hear postfix is nice.
In any event, your network is *way* too small to deal with Win* crap. Even if it's *donated* by MS, there's bound to be licensing issues at some point.
Deploy Linux in your server room and then migrate your users at a later date...if at all.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
This is a bit excessive, pal. Hell, I'm so clueless about Linux or unix that I would have believed that 3D GUI in Jurassic Park but even I know what Samba is. It's obvious that the guy submitting the question has not put forth even done one shread of effort. That's what people are griping about. I think you'll find that the people on slashdot are more than eager to help someone who's got a tough problem. But, like anyone, they don't want to feel like their being taken advantage of. Considering how freeking hard it is to get any submissions accepted around here, you gotta kind of understand people getting all grumbly and pissy when they see something like this.
This is a great idea to give yourself better job security. You are planning on staying with this company, right? Cause if not, just leave everything Windows, they'll likely spend much more money hiring someone to sort out what you did.
I've never done this before, so take it with a grain of salt, but Active Directory can act as a kerberos ticket server, and therefore should be able to work with anything that uses kerberos.
Having never set up Linux to use kerberos either, I couldn't tell you what packages are available to do this, but I would imagine that they do exist.
I know there are lots of free software bigots on this site and you can find lots of sites purporting to have easy configuration instructions for kerberos/AD set up, but I don't care. This product works, period. And it does it in an easy manner and it does it flawlessly, at least in our environment, which is a true 24x7 environment where uptime and accessibility matters -- a hospital.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
Your trolling is pointless. I told him all the useless information there is, if you failed to notice :) Keep your moralizing for someone else, please.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
When people ask lame questions in public forums that could have been answered with a minimal amount of legwork on their part, the standard answer is RTFM, which coincidently was coined during the days of USENET. Google has built the community already. This guy is just walking around it with his eyes closed.
One thing we found when moving from 2000 to 2003 servers is that the terminal server licensing is not free. On a 2000 server each server had an unlimited TS License. On 2003, you have to purchase them. One extra cost to beware of.
If at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving.
And if you need remote VPN access, check out OpenVPN. It's SSL based, easy to configure (comparitavely), and stable. There are clients for Windows, Linux, and Mac.
I'm still waiting for the punchline.
If you can't google far enough to ask this sort of thing on a samba mailinglist, you have to ask yourself, "Should I really be running any sort of server in any size enterprise environment?"
And on top of that, someone thought everyone would care enough to have this posted on the front page of slashdot. There's 10 minutes I'm not getting back.
If you have an application that requires Microsoft to run on the backend, then you are going to have trouble replacing said server with Samba. If it is an application that everyone uses, then even if you replace the other servers with Samba, you will still need the Microsoft CALs (client access license) to attach to the one remaning server. That is where the costs get you, not always the server software, but the CALs.
You can still make a case for migrating away from Microsoft at that point, but not based on software purchase price.
If you still need to buy software, have you seen this website? http://www.techsoup.org/ The nonprofit price for Microsoft software is very, very low.
What do you mean by "server?" File servers? Directory servers? Database servers? Web servers? Backup tape servers? Mail servers? Web proxy servers? What the heck are you serving?
And, how will adding servers improve your stability and security? Is there some sort of hot-backup software you're using that works on both linux and windows?
Regardless, if you're using 6 servers for only 50 users you might want to investigate whether or not all of them are really necessary. First figure out what you're trying to provide to these 50 users. Only then can you figure out the simplest way to provide it.
What's funny is, the people with the snide "RTFM" or "learn to google" or "one word: samba" posts, are providing more information than the "Why the hell can't we just help this guy with his question" people.
Here's a suggestion: The "Why can't we help him" people sould all start providing the help they think should be provided rather than berating the "RTFM" people for not being helpful. The RTFM people can continue to say "RTFM" or whatever as long as they provide links to relevant google searches of other helpful sites.
As for myself, I'll shut the hell up and go RT some FMs and maybe post a more helpful response later.
And thus the answers you will get will be equally useless (crap in-crap out model....).
If you are more specific about what your servers are currently doing I am pretty sure people will help you out.
Now, for basic servics:
- File server and print server: Samba.
- Authentication servers: I believe Samba can act as a domain controller.
- DNS server: bind running in Linux.
- Web server: Apache.
- Dsta Base servers: MySQL.
- Backup server: Amanda.
- email: sendmail, postfix....
So, exactly which services are you aiming to provide???
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This is an honest question, coming from a legitimate source, so all of those who think no one is out there stumbling along trying to understand all at once everything you have learned over the course of years need to take a deep breath.
To the question: Yes, you can phase out your Windows 2000/2003 server in favor of Linux servers. Whether it is worth it is up to you to determine - if you have a lot invested in your Windows server admin skills, and you don't have time to devote to raising your Linux server admin skills, this may not be for you. Both OS's require a degree of skill to manage, particularly for networks of desktops being employed by people who need the desktop to be perfect all the time (which is what my experience tells me small non-profit users expect).
If you are willing/able to meet the skill requirements for the system & network administration, and can translate that into desktop support that meets or exceeds that you deliver now, you need to come to an agreement with the organization about how best to deliver services using Linux. Some services can be moved off of Windows relatively transparently, but those which users seem to be most sensitive to generally aren't as easy to migrate.
If you are running Exchange, particularly if you are using group calendars, there isn't a terrific free-as-in-beer Linux solution. SuSE Openexchange Server offers what looks like a nice solution, but the pricing isn't a significant difference to the Microsoft non-profit pricings that I've experienced, and it comes with a recurring annual client license fee.
If you are extensively using Windows DFS for your file service, then the transition to a system that uses SAMBA, NFS, or DAV will be visible to the desktop user, with all the associated gnashing of teeth that brings. If you haven't implemented DFS, then the reproduction of home directories and shared directories with SAMBA should be simple and, with group policies, transparent.
Authentication of users against the Active Directory to Linux network services isn't as hard as it might seem. By installing the Microsoft Services for Unix (or whatever they are calling it this week) you will get POSIX fields in the Active Directory schema that can be used to write LDAP queries against for authentication via PAM, Apache modules, and PHP, Perl, and Java applications. Likewise, logins on Linux servers and workstations with AD credentials can be directed against the AD via LDAP, and SuSE has this option included in their default install process.
Finally, there are likely applications that are seen as critical to the success of the organization that are only supported on Windows. These niche applications will necessarily govern how much you can remove Windows from your back office.
In general, the introduction of a few Linux server into your back office is as painful as you want to make it. Moving user or customer facing services to Linux has to be an organizational decision, but it doesn't present a lot of technical problems. The biggest thing to remember is that you are meddling with the culture of the organization. These 50 people are doing something they consider very important, and they are not interested in what is cool to a bunch of geeks. If you thing Linux will save you enough money to buy 'IT goodies' then you shouldn't even bother, because it isn't the right motivation. Linux can save money, it can be more secure, and it can be more stable, but all of those things are irrelevant if they users are pissed off because 'it worked fine before you changed things'.
My advice is to use Linux to deploy new services, integrate it into the existing network, but only replace something that works when it is time to upgrade (since it will break anyway) or when it stops working. Be open and honest when you deploy something, when it breaks as well as when it works fine, and if you blow it up, take responsibility and don't blame someone else.
You work for a non-profit organization and it's shelling out contribution money for Microsoft products?
Just because an organization is running Windows servers doesn't mean they have to pay for it. For some organizations Microsoft will donate software and coordinate with a local .NET users group to develop "line-of-business" applications unique to the non-profit. Case in point, the local (Kansas City) .NET users group developed an internal application to allow the Salvation Army (SA) to coordinate donations and logistics getting items to/from the SA warehouse. Those who contributed to development were given copies of Visual Studio -- for the duration of the project, of course -- and server licenses were given to the SA by the local MS office.
Usually, Microsoft software is not free, but sometimes it is...
(1) SMB:
The support is there fore most distros to use an AD server for authentication, (users, not groups, and the users must exist in the password file). On fedora, which I recommend as an alternate to RHEL (RedHat is the easiest to configure in this area imho), the command to look at is authconfig. Enter your domain, your primary and secondary servers, and your AD auth setup is done.
(2) VPN:
consider using PopTop as a pptp vpn server for linux. There is documentation available but there are also other ways of doing it
(3) Research:
Do some research. The Linux Documentation Project is a good source. But google is your friend as well.
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
You would have believed this was real? That 3D Gui from Jurassic Park runs on IRIX
Now for the application stack. I prefer using Novell's eDirectory as opposed to Microsoft's Active Directory. It'll run on Linux so that's one less Windows server right there. The price is based on a per user basis which comes up to $2 per user! Not a bad price. Tie that in with all your Linux services such as Samba, IMAP server, Postfix with eDirectory using the LDAP protocol. Their password self-service option is pretty enticing as well.
While we're on the topic of Novell and moving away from Windows on servers, look into GroupWise as a messaging server instead of MS Exchange. Again, it runs on Linux as well a bunch of other platforms and has cross platform clients so you're not limited to Windows for end users either.
All that bullshit and the best you can do is tag up a link to samba.org and say, 'nuff said.'
Judging from your resume, looks like your handlers keep you locked away from the humans at all times anyway. Smart move for them.
Moralize that, fuckwit.
They did nothing of the sort. You can use 2 terminal service licenses for remote administration in 2k just like 2k3. They are absolutely *not* free in 2000. For regular users, not remote administration, you are supposed to get TS licenses; be it win2k or win2k3. Don't take my word for it.
Q. Do I need to purchase a Terminal Services CAL for each machine that is running a validly licensed copy of Windows XP Home Edition and connected to a Windows 2000 Terminal Server?
A. Yes, all Microsoft operating system products (except for Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional) require a Terminal Services CAL to access a Windows 2000 Terminal Server.
I know the original question was 'how do I dump MS for Linux', but I highly suggest you choose the right tool for the job. Yes, Linux is great. Samba is great. Administering it, well, it depends on *you* really. As most are guessing, it doesn't sound like you've heard of samba, so it is likely you are fairly new to the Linux scene. Great. Welcome.
Now, you really need to decide if it is the right tool and if you can make it the right tool. Before doing that, consider your current setup and your current upgrade path. Is MS wrong for you? Maybe not. Do you qualify for Non-profit MS licensing? Yes, it is evil and I should be lashed for suggesting it. However, it is important to know that the option exists. If you do qualify, you are not going to get a better licensing option from MS at your size in all liklihood. Small Business Server 2k3 is definitely targetted at your size organization; find out what pricing you can get for it from the MS marketroids. Let them even give their TCO arguments to you. Remember them, write them down, you'll need them.
Once you have that info, you have the ammunition to help justify your linux proposal. Or you won't and you'll have at least chosen the Evil Empire with thought...
Don't make the switch just because the zealots are pushing you to. Make the switch when it is the right economical, business & technical supportable option. Learn Samba. Prove it works to yourself. Bring in a workstation with it and prove it works to the non-profit. Prove the TCO argument. You *will* win if they really listen.
For most of the business end of the company that is. I work for a non-profit as well and I run everything in my power on Microsoft. Why? Because it is the most compatible with what is out there.
/. because apparently there is no help to be had.
I don't have time to sit around and learn an entire new infrastructure from such (apparently) great helpful linux zealots on
Windows works with the majority of the applications that are out there and if this person is purchasing through Dell as a vendor for their equipment in bulk they get a great deal of the Windows OS at cut-rate prices, including the server-end. Why would one not go for Windows? A non-profit has enough to keep up with without having to worry about a steep learning curve.
Also, the general turnaround for most non-profits as far as money goes is around 30%-40% to the donation. The rest goes to keeping the company going (employees, maintenance, bills, lease payments etc).
This person also didn't state where the donations were coming from. For all you pinheads know the money is coming from corporations who form partnerships with the non-profit. The general public might not even donate at all to this organization.
Confucius say better to remain silent than to open mouth and remove all doubt.
2) Check to see if your local university or community college has a Linux Users Group (LUG). You'll meet other people with an interest in Linux who may even be willing to help you with design and implementation. They can also help you choose a Linux distro appropriate for what you are doing. I personally like Debian, if for no other reason than dselect, its package management system. You can get Samba, Sendmail, CUPS, Bind, Apache, etc. for it as mentioned above in other posts.
Good luck!
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
I know this isn't what you asked, but Microsoft significantly discounts and even donates software to non-profit organizations. You might not need to change platforms at all. See this site.
their being taken advantage of.
"they're".
Also, a preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with.
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned.
The European Union offers a 148 page migration guide for going from Windows to GNU/Linux. The IDA-project produced this high-quality must-read.
You go now.
Quisque verborum suorum optimus interpres...
...instead of "go use Samba you fucktard".
I run a corporate AD forest that covers 3 countries. We have 3 primary AD controllers at the corporate office and a local AD controller at each major branch office. I've started integrating Linux into the mix, with an Oracle server, Mail server, DNS server, and a few application servers.
The hardest part has been getting Kerberos to properly authenticate with the AD tree. Basically, strip an off-the-shelf copy of Linux of anything related to Kerberos, then install a fresh copy of it from MIT. Once you've got that working, go pick up a copy of pam_krb5 and plug that into the PAM system. From then on out, all the linux services can authenticate with the AD tree through Kerberos.
If you want to share files, then you'll need to go the Samba route, but you don't have to start there. Plenty of Linux services (Courier IMAP, QMail, Bind, etc) work just fine on an AD forest without Samba.
I'm not sure if I'd trust my entire enterprise to Linux just yet. The time involved in figuring out which of the 5,000 configuration files I need to update to add a user isn't worth the ~$15 per user license of Windows. A single Windows 2003 server license plus users is very reasonable. It's the cost of 10+ server licenses that will kill you. Run a Windows AD controller and use Linux for the services on your network.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
Anyone considering using open source software in a small non-profit should be in touch with the non-profit open source iniative (nosi). There is a wealth of experience there and it is a good group of individuals. http://nosi.net
It is qmail, not QMail.
Quisque verborum suorum optimus interpres...
I'm totally embarrassed that anyone who uses Linux would jump on someone interested in learning it. YOu guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.
I was pretty active on USENET during the old days.
1) People were expected to be reasonably knowledgeable about the subjects they were posting on. That is there weren't many newbie groups at all
2) In general people didn't ask dumb questions that were easily researched (though nothing like google really existed).
3) There were other discussion groups like genie, prodigy, AOL and compuserve which were friendlier for these sorts of basic questions. They often had paid tech support staff and a community of users who were helpful. They also had what we would today call FAQs and people were told to check the FAQ quite frequently.
4) Finally the closest analogy to google would have been gopher and people who didn't check gopher were redirected to it.
So using his analogy:
a) he posts to a general computer list something that is specific to SAMBA and gets sent to SAMBA
b) Once he gets to the SAMBA list and does some background research he could post specific questions about SAMBA
c) He needs to pick his groups carefully or he would get rude answers
I'd say the internet is much more firendly today than it was 15-20 years ago to these sorts of users. The AOL flood in '95 set a tone which destroyed USENET. The closest thing to USENET that exists today are the subject specific BBSes and listservers.
Unfortunatly, google tends to present as much shit as it does shine, there are a number of good beginner sites but once you move beyond these and actually attempt some integration, there is near silence. I think before you condem someone for asking what you assume to be a simple minded question with such an obvious answer (that BTW you don't seem to be able to answer) you should check your facts.
If you already have an all-windows network, will it really save you that much money to migrate just a few servers to Linux? There various costs associated with Linux that many people overlook, including training, support, etc
As a non-profit organization, you may qualify for special pricing of commercial products, including Microsoft stuff (apps, servers, licenses). If the price is low enough, you may actually be better off with a commercial solution instead of an open source one. That may be heresy here on Slashdot, but then again so were Galileo's teachings in the Catholic Church.
Check out TechSoup.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
A more suitable question might be, "I'm considering integrating a Linux server into a windows environment, and it looks like Samba is the way to go. I've read some of the tutorials and whitepapers and it looks like it can be done; have any slashdot readers done such a project? Is Samba the right solution, and what pitfalls should I expect?"
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
"It's obvious that the guy submitting the question has not put forth even done one shread of effort"
Indeed.
It is so blatantly obvious the message is an stupid troll (hell, six servers for 50 users? am I the only one that see this is plainly incredible, even on a Windows-based typically-clueless-microsoftdroid-managed network?)
This message is most probably sent by a Linux-zealot liking to see how easily this environment can be managed with Linux-based tools.
Just in case the poster is not a troll after all, here comes what I think is te savviest answer it can be given, under the circumnstances:
"migrating from Server 2000 to Server 2003 in a month or so"
Don't do that. But don't save that money for a bigger fileserver either (hell, you already have SIX!!! servers). Spend it on a cluefull consultor. After the operation you will have consolidated all your six servers into one, maybe two, and you will never need to worry about licenses again. One the way, you will freed yourself from worms and viruses and you will be able to have your servers remotely managed and monitored for really cheap.
The real point here is: find a knowledgeable guy.
ASAP.
I managed to connect linux to win xp home almost imeddiately, it's not difficult. The problem is windows itself: I still can't have Win xp home view a win98 pc...
I'm going to give the guy a break instead of bonking the noob on the nose for asking.
1. Thank you -- well spoken. You are informative, generous, and polite. SlashDot needs more like you.
2. If someone submits a totally idiotic question, and a SlashDot editor posts that question, then the SlashDot editor is to blame for the idiocy.
-kgj
-kgj