Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On 3/24/02 9:14 AM, "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate >> through Pam instead of using its own database? > > http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/winbindd.8.html > winbindd is a daemon that provides a service for the Name Service Switch [snip] Only useful if your password database is coming from a WinNT/2000 box. Otherwise, very cool. -- Ed Marczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
At my highschool, we have been working on this, and lately we are starting to see some success, if you have time i suggest it, but believe me this is not for the ill hearted!\ ~brandon >From: Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux >Date: 21 Mar 2002 12:47:02 -0800 > >On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 09:15, Ed Wilts wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM -0500, David Kramer wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote: > > > > > > Today, there is only one valid reason for not using a Linux box with >Samba > > > to replace NT shares or Netware. > > > > [compatibility reason cut] > > > > Actually, there is a 2nd reason. Linux with Samba simply does not have >the > > access control mechanisms that NT does, and this limits the granularity >of > > access. For some businesses (like ours), this is a show stopper. Linux >ACL > > support is being worked on, but it's not ready for prime time. > >Have you looked at XFS on Linux? Using Samba on XFS (or ext3 with ACLs) >should give you what you need: >http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ >http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/102_installer.html > >(Don't know much about these:) >http://acl.bestbits.at/ >http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-acl/ > > > > >___ >Redhat-list mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list Brandon Caudle -- 15yr Old Avid Unix User (HP-UX,FreeBSD,Linux) Larkhaven Golf Course Charlotte, NC "There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full." -- Henry Kissinger _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On 3/24/02 1:12 AM, "David Talkington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Gordon Messmer wrote: > >> On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 21:15, David Talkington wrote: >>> Edward Marczak wrote: >>> Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate through Pam instead of using its own database? >>> >>> Yes, but you may have to roll your own. See --with-pam and >>> - --with-pam_smbpass options to configure. They're not on by default. >> >> Sure they are. I've seen the patches that Red Hat applies for Linux >> PAM. > > Let me clarify that -- they're not on by default when samba is built > from official source. Thanks everyone (less than 10 hours later!). So the answer is, yes, I missed it. Thanks again. -- Ed Marczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. My original point still stands: integrating samba and netatalk is still a bit of a 'challenge'. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
> Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate > through Pam instead of using its own database? http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/winbindd.8.html winbindd is a daemon that provides a service for the Name Service Switch capability that is present in most modern C libraries. The Name Service Switch allows user and system information to be obtained from different databases services such as NIS or DNS. The exact behaviour can be configured throught the /etc/nsswitch.conf file. Users and groups are allocated as they are resolved to a range of user and group ids specified by the administrator of the Samba system. The service provided by winbindd is called `winbind' and can be used to resolve user and group information from a Windows NT server. The service can also provide authentication services via an associated PAM module. Ed Wilts Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gordon Messmer wrote: >On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 21:15, David Talkington wrote: >> Edward Marczak wrote: >> >> >Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate >> >through Pam instead of using its own database? >> >> Yes, but you may have to roll your own. See --with-pam and >> - --with-pam_smbpass options to configure. They're not on by default. > >Sure they are. I've seen the patches that Red Hat applies for Linux >PAM. Let me clarify that -- they're not on by default when samba is built from official source. Sorry to confuse. - -d - -- David Talkington PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/0xCA4C11AD.pgp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQA/AwUBPJ1uTb9BpdPKTBGtEQLBhwCfV+fIehN3ZPbZr+bsD6MYTRVSh2EAoNBb SZK4hXeEVs4kojOvNmVybDTI =84Qw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 21:15, David Talkington wrote: > Edward Marczak wrote: > > >Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate > >through Pam instead of using its own database? > > Yes, but you may have to roll your own. See --with-pam and > - --with-pam_smbpass options to configure. They're not on by default. Sure they are. I've seen the patches that Red Hat applies for Linux PAM. $ ldd /usr/sbin/smbd libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x4002c000) libnsl.so.1 => /lib/libnsl.so.1 (0x4003) libpam.so.0 => /lib/libpam.so.0 (0x40046000) libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x4004e000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
... The copy of the message I sent which I received was incomplete. I'm resending it. On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 07:26, Ed Wilts wrote: > OE mangled your message - it came through entirely as an attachment so it's > a little more awkward for me to reply, so I'm leaving your message intact at > the bottom. Might just be OE, but it's only a couple of people on the list > that this does it to me with... We're probably all using Evolution with PGP. ;) > Looking at the e-mail on my imap server, it > came through as a MIME-formatted message. mutt complains about the pgp > signature. Oh well... I've noticed that this happens with messages I send to mailing lists. I don't know why, though. I'm guessing the mailing list modifies the message body, but I don't know why it would modify the message body inside the MIME boundaries. > 1. I agree that there is nothing wrong with offering CVS access. However, > the FAQ clearly suggests that if you want to install XFS, "the best way to > do this is to checkout the SGI XFS kernel from their CVS tree". Always the latest code :) The binary packages they offer follow Red Hat's kernel releases, and not the current kernel releases. SGI's testing may indicate the the latest kernel is better than Red Hat's current production kernel by some measure. I don't know, but it looks like Red Hat will be shipping 2.4.18+ with their next Linux distribution release. > 2. "[they offer] an ISO which you can use to install Red Hat Linux on XFS > filesystems." Let's be blunt here. If the ISO comes from SGI, it's not Red > Hat Linux. That's correct. I believe, however, that the installer ISO contains only the anaconda installer, the kernel rpms, the XFS command rpms, and other packages specifically required by the installer. Everything else comes from the standard Red Hat CD's. > It's some distribution that may be based on Red Hat Linux > underneath, but it may or may not have critical patches applied that fix > security holes, fix bugs, enhance stability, whatever. It looks like SGI > may start with Red Hat kernel source rpms, so that's a good thing, but if a > new patch comes out for the kernel, you may be waiting an extra day or two > for it to make it to the XFS project. That's probably true. Do you expose your fileserver to untrusted users? Security is risk management. One should not disregard a product because of security concerns, unless the risks outweigh the benefits. In the case of the kernel, your risks are very likely going to be limited to local users in the case of privilege elevation, or DOS attacks from remote users. Those are risks that can normally be managed if you want ACL's, which provide a very functional enhancement to the security of the system. > 3. This is a Red Hat list and I would assume that the average person on > this list is a Red Hat user. Replacing Red Hat's kernel with someone else's > is not something the average person should do lightly, and in fact, I would > suspect that the average person doesn't know how to even do this and > understand the risks involved. Yes, but the users who want ACL's probably do. Understanding ACL's and how their benefits from an administrative standpoint is probably more complex that understanding a kernel install. "rpm -ivh kernel..." > 4. I quoted the FAQ when I said that there was no installer for 7.2. > Obviously the FAQ is out of date. You're right. Looks like an oversight. > 5. When I said limited support backup tools, I knew that xfsdump existed. > How about tar? Will it backup and restore ACLs? What about commercial > backup utilities like netbackup? That's what I meant about limited support. > Sure, you can use the ONE utility that's provided, but you may be rewriting > your existing backup/restore scripts or be forced to scrap the commercial > tool you're already running. Tar doesn't back up extended information from any filesystem, on any platform that I'm aware of. Every filesystem for every platform that I'm aware of has its own "dump" utility. The native dump tool is normally used by commercial systems. > 6. You're welcome to disagree as to whether or not it's ready for the > average file server. Perhaps what you consider average is different from > mine. If you want a journalling file system that's not supported by your OS > supplier (Red Hat) If your vendor doesn't provide the capabilities you need, you're going to have to get something that they don't support. That's true of any vendor for any product. > , has limited support for enterprise backup tools, Spend more time in the enterprise :) Dump is where it's at. > forces > you to get updates from two different vendors, go for it. I *ove that Red Hat provides so much from one vendor, but spend some time using any other product. It doesn't matter who your vendor is, eventually you will need something that they don't provide. Would you disregard commercial backup solutions, because Red Hat doesn't support t
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 21:00, Edward Marczak wrote: > > ...and a third: sites with mixed clients. Ever try to serve people who hop > around between Macs *and* PCs? While possible, it's not pretty. However, > with NetWare or 2000, both clients share the same password to authenticate > and groups work smoothly for authorization. > > Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate > through Pam instead of using its own database? I don't believe that's possible if the Windows clients are encrypting their passwords. If you turn off password encryption on all of your clients, passwords are sent to the server instead of hashes, and samba will use PAM. (Which is not to say that it's a good idea :) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Edward Marczak wrote: >Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate >through Pam instead of using its own database? Yes, but you may have to roll your own. See --with-pam and - --with-pam_smbpass options to configure. They're not on by default. Cheers -d - -- David Talkington PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/0xCA4C11AD.pgp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQA/AwUBPJ1g5r9BpdPKTBGtEQIG+QCeIuqSwa8aUjntlxw1WmGYqajKHrsAnRmh CWHOom2cLnCgCquyIMeH3Xnx =ELN2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On 3/21/02 12:15 PM, "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM -0500, David Kramer wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote: >> >> Today, there is only one valid reason for not using a Linux box with Samba >> to replace NT shares or Netware. > > [compatibility reason cut] > > Actually, there is a 2nd reason. Linux with Samba simply does not have the > access control mechanisms that NT does, and this limits the granularity of > access. For some businesses (like ours), this is a show stopper. Linux ACL > support is being worked on, but it's not ready for prime time. ...and a third: sites with mixed clients. Ever try to serve people who hop around between Macs *and* PCs? While possible, it's not pretty. However, with NetWare or 2000, both clients share the same password to authenticate and groups work smoothly for authorization. Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate through Pam instead of using its own database? -- Ed Marczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
Warning Unable to process data: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=_ascension.dragonsdawn.net-5900-1016909983-0001-2"
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
OE mangled your message - it came through entirely as an attachment so it's a little more awkward for me to reply, so I'm leaving your message intact at the bottom. Might just be OE, but it's only a couple of people on the list that this does it to me with... Looking at the e-mail on my imap server, it came through as a MIME-formatted message. mutt complains about the pgp signature. Oh well... 1. I agree that there is nothing wrong with offering CVS access. However, the FAQ clearly suggests that if you want to install XFS, "the best way to do this is to checkout the SGI XFS kernel from their CVS tree". 2. "[they offer] an ISO which you can use to install Red Hat Linux on XFS filesystems." Let's be blunt here. If the ISO comes from SGI, it's not Red Hat Linux. It's some distribution that may be based on Red Hat Linux underneath, but it may or may not have critical patches applied that fix security holes, fix bugs, enhance stability, whatever. It looks like SGI may start with Red Hat kernel source rpms, so that's a good thing, but if a new patch comes out for the kernel, you may be waiting an extra day or two for it to make it to the XFS project. 3. This is a Red Hat list and I would assume that the average person on this list is a Red Hat user. Replacing Red Hat's kernel with someone else's is not something the average person should do lightly, and in fact, I would suspect that the average person doesn't know how to even do this and understand the risks involved. 4. I quoted the FAQ when I said that there was no installer for 7.2. Obviously the FAQ is out of date. 5. When I said limited support backup tools, I knew that xfsdump existed. How about tar? Will it backup and restore ACLs? What about commercial backup utilities like netbackup? That's what I meant about limited support. Sure, you can use the ONE utility that's provided, but you may be rewriting your existing backup/restore scripts or be forced to scrap the commercial tool you're already running. 6. You're welcome to disagree as to whether or not it's ready for the average file server. Perhaps what you consider average is different from mine. If you want a journalling file system that's not supported by your OS supplier (Red Hat), has limited support for enterprise backup tools, forces you to get updates from two different vendors, go for it. I'm not saying XFS is bad or that it isn't right for you. If I have a colleague who wants to install a file server at home, I'm sure not going to recommend an XFS file system at this time (he probably doesn't need ACL support either). If I want to run a production big-business file server at work that demands ACL support, I personally wouln't run it there either in its current state, and that's where we started this thread. Would you believe a vendor that said that the software was stable?In my opinion, XFS just hasn't been out long enough on Linux to prove long-term stability and vendor committment. .../Ed Ed Wilts Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Messmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 15:00, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:47:02PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > > > Have you looked at XFS on Linux? Using Samba on XFS (or ext3 with ACLs) > > should give you what you need: > > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ > > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/102_installer.html > > Start with the FAQ and you'll very quickly see that it's not ready for the > average file server today. You'll see lots of references to starting with the > cvs version, Yes, they offer access to CVS. Nothing wrong with that. They also make available kernel RPM packages for Red Hat Linux, and offer an ISO which you can use to install Red Hat Linux on XFS filesystems. >From the FAQ: Q: How stable is XFS? It is stable and being used in production systems on a large range of hardware. From small systems to big multiprocessing systems with gigabytes of ram.. While Red Hat might not support XFS yet, I would disagree with the statement that "it's not ready for the average file server today" > explanations as to why there is no support in a standard kernel, It touches a lot of the kernel and wasn't 1.0 early enough to make it into 2.3. Linus has declared XFS 2.5 material. That doesn't mean that it's not stable, just that they don't want large portions of the kernel in the stable tree. > no RHL 7.2 installer (it's in the works) Yes there is. ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/Release-1.0.2/installer/i386/ > , limited support in backup tools, etc. xfsdump exists, and is the standard tool for backing up XFS partitions in IRIX as well. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 15:00, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:47:02PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > > > Have you looked at XFS on Linux? Using Samba on XFS (or ext3 with ACLs) > > should give you what you need: > > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ > > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/102_installer.html > > Start with the FAQ and you'll very quickly see that it's not ready for the > average file server today. You'll see lots of references to starting with the > cvs version, Yes, they offer access to CVS. Nothing wrong with that. They also make available kernel RPM packages for Red Hat Linux, and offer an ISO which you can use to install Red Hat Linux on XFS filesystems. >From the FAQ: Q: How stable is XFS? It is stable and being used in production systems on a large range of hardware. From small systems to big multiprocessing systems with gigabytes of ram.. While Red Hat might not support XFS yet, I would disagree with the statement that "it's not ready for the average file server today" > explanations as to why there is no support in a standard kernel, It touches a lot of the kernel and wasn't 1.0 early enough to make it into 2.3. Linus has declared XFS 2.5 material. That doesn't mean that it's not stable, just that they don't want large portions of the kernel in the stable tree. > no RHL 7.2 installer (it's in the works) Yes there is. ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/Release-1.0.2/installer/i386/ > , limited support in backup tools, etc. xfsdump exists, and is the standard tool for backing up XFS partitions in IRIX as well. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ed Wilts wrote: >All this leads me back to my original comments - there is lots of work going >on, and I'm sure we'll have good ACL support eventually, but today it's not >there for most of us. You might get something work that works for you, but >you'll be bleeding edge, probably run into incompabilities, and who knows what >else. For the record, I was thinking specifically of Solaris when I mentioned Unix filesystem ACLs. It's disappointing that there's not yet a mature open source alternative, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day ... - -d - -- David Talkington PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/0xCA4C11AD.pgp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQA/AwUBPJpsW79BpdPKTBGtEQIc9wCfav6NrIFe+8iXrMRVvFeBSXbmky8AoKO/ htiW0J5CxU/v35RomjMB9g8h =eyjo -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:47:02PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > Have you looked at XFS on Linux? Using Samba on XFS (or ext3 with ACLs) > should give you what you need: > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/102_installer.html Start with the FAQ and you'll very quickly see that it's not ready for the average file server today. You'll see lots of references to starting with the cvs version, explanations as to why there is no support in a standard kernel, no RHL 7.2 installer (it's in the works), limited support in backup tools, etc. Sure it's getting there, but for most people, this just makes it impractical. Compare the effort of getting ACL support in XFS with getting XFS support in Windows. > (Don't know much about these:) > http://acl.bestbits.at/ Known issues with disk quotas and NFS > http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-acl/ >From the web site (from the initial announcement dated 2002-03-06 15:55): "Currently, using the package requires patching and recompiling your kernel, and installing tools to use the new features, thus requiring some kernel-fu savvy. Once development has reached a stable, reliable state and has been well tested, the kernel patch aspect will be submitted for inclusion in the main kernel sources." All this leads me back to my original comments - there is lots of work going on, and I'm sure we'll have good ACL support eventually, but today it's not there for most of us. You might get something work that works for you, but you'll be bleeding edge, probably run into incompabilities, and who knows what else. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 09:15, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM -0500, David Kramer wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote: > > > > Today, there is only one valid reason for not using a Linux box with Samba > > to replace NT shares or Netware. > > [compatibility reason cut] > > Actually, there is a 2nd reason. Linux with Samba simply does not have the > access control mechanisms that NT does, and this limits the granularity of > access. For some businesses (like ours), this is a show stopper. Linux ACL > support is being worked on, but it's not ready for prime time. Have you looked at XFS on Linux? Using Samba on XFS (or ext3 with ACLs) should give you what you need: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/102_installer.html (Don't know much about these:) http://acl.bestbits.at/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-acl/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ed Wilts wrote: >Actually, there is a 2nd reason. Linux with Samba simply does not have the >access control mechanisms that NT does, and this limits the granularity of >access. For some businesses (like ours), this is a show stopper. Linux ACL >support is being worked on, but it's not ready for prime time. As I'm sure you know, though, there are other Unix filesystems which do have ACL capability. Still, you're quite right that this is the remaining of what used to be the two significant advantages of NTFS over ext2. (The other used to be journalling.) >Linux is not the answer to every problem. It's getting better, but for some >tasks, Windows is still superior. That's a tough case to make among evangelists, but yes, it bothers me, too, when Linux is irresponsibly oversold. It's doing incredibly well on its own merits against well-heeled interests ... no need for hyperbole and the damaged credibility that it risks. - -d - -- David Talkington PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/0xCA4C11AD.pgp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQA/AwUBPJpAHr9BpdPKTBGtEQInLACgkS+pVfk6wRqyzM8gKVb8G4Fh+mQAoOeb IukY3ZpmRExvVENe9DhKHUM7 =NLBy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
> Linux is not the answer to every problem. It's getting better, but for some > tasks, Windows is still superior. Evil, Evil I tell you! ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM -0500, David Kramer wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote: > > Today, there is only one valid reason for not using a Linux box with Samba > to replace NT shares or Netware. [compatibility reason cut] Actually, there is a 2nd reason. Linux with Samba simply does not have the access control mechanisms that NT does, and this limits the granularity of access. For some businesses (like ours), this is a show stopper. Linux ACL support is being worked on, but it's not ready for prime time. Linux is not the answer to every problem. It's getting better, but for some tasks, Windows is still superior. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
The gartner group says otherwise about Apache. They recommended last year that people migrate from IIS to some OTHER web server product such as Apache. Speaking of which. I used both products for years. I haven't had a problem with my Apache servers over the last 4 years however the IIS servers are comprimised every few weeks or so. Pretty pathetic. The last known exploit of Apache was logged in 1998. Not a bad track record. Frank >By the way, Mindcraft was also the company that said Apache was a piece of >sh*t compared to IIS. Ayup. It takes a mighty skilled Windows sysadmin >to keep an IIS server running unattended for a few weeks under real loads. >Mindcraft is a mouthpiece for M$FT. > ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote: > The mindcraft "study" was bought and paid for by Microsoft, and has > been widely shown to be fraudulent and invalid. MANY, many articles > have been written about the multitude of ways in which they skewed > the results to favor MS. In addition, there were some valid criticisms > of Linux in the report, ALL of which have been fixed since that time > with current releases of Linux. In short, linux far surpasses NT > in file server performance given equal circumstances. There was a discussion about this last night at my user group meeting (http://www.blu.org). Today, there is only one valid reason for not using a Linux box with Samba to replace NT shares or Netware. That reason is because on occasion, Microsoft tweaks how sharing works with Windows, and it can take a while for someone to reverse engineer it and get Samba working with it. So if you're in a large office with lots of computers and lots of versions of Windows, and you have to have the latest and (relatively) greatest version of Windows, you might end up in a situation where a new release of Windows won't be immediately compatible with Samba. By the way, Mindcraft was also the company that said Apache was a piece of sh*t compared to IIS. Ayup. It takes a mighty skilled Windows sysadmin to keep an IIS server running unattended for a few weeks under real loads. Mindcraft is a mouthpiece for M$FT. --- David Kramer http://thekramers.net DK KD DKK D If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box DK KD crashed... ...,Oh wait, he already does. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
