On 02/25/2013 06:03 AM, Duncan wrote: > Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted: > >>>> I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows >>>> focused. >> >> Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused > > ... But samba is...
Actually, no. That's why I've been so excited about Samba 4, and why I'm setting it up at home. AD is actually a very powerful network administration tool, and it's not necessary to think of it as a "Windows thing". Think of it more like a sane replacement of NIS, tying in NTP and DNS management as well. > > > As far as the thread in general goes, the question arises, if you're > running both samba and nfs, why? They're both network-based-filesystems > that in theory at least should have reasonably similar functionality, so > an admittedly not particularly clueful reaction is "if it hurts when you > do that, stop doing it". It's incredibly rare to see a uniform enterprise network. Every one I've witnessed is heterogenous. The reasons usually come in a mix of these flavors: 1) There's no policy for homogeneity. 2) Department A does it one way, department B does it another way, and both departments are largely autonomous. 3) There needs to be integration between system A and system B, and neither of those systems can reasonably be expected to change from their current state. 4) Someone mandated a "solution" that only supports X and Y, and it's not worth the resources and risk of revamping the entire rest of the network to meet that spec natively.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
