Andrew,
I'm thinking that Samba4 offers what I need and will be pretty safe
(data wise) as long as I don't stray too far into uncharted/
undeveloped areas. Primarily we need to be able to do 3 things:
manage users, groups, & computers; share data on the network; be able
to log into any ma
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 16:52 -0500, Ryan Bair wrote:
> Samba 4 could eat your children
I've only ever claimed it could eat your cat...
> and is still pretty incomplete
> (printing isn't there at all last I checked). I'd highly recommend
> sticking with 3.
While incomplete, the areas that are th
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 15:54 -0500, Richard Hurt wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> We are currently using an Apple XServe G5 as a PDC for 150 Windows XP
> Pro machines. Everything worked well (sorta) under OS X 10.4 (Tiger)
> but when we upgraded to 10.5 (Leopard) it just fell apart. I
> reinstalled t
Samba 4 could eat your children and is still pretty incomplete
(printing isn't there at all last I checked). I'd highly recommend
sticking with 3.
For Samba 4, the AD toolkit can be used but again probably not ready
for primetime.
In Samba 3 I believe the NT Domain user manager can be used, but I
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 03:54:04PM -0500, Richard Hurt wrote:
> So, I am going to set up my own stand-along Samba box (Debian 4) to
> replace the old XServe. My question is should I use Samba 3 or 4? I
Being biased a bit, I'd say that probably Samba4 will be the
more bumpy ride.
Volker
pg
Hey all,
We are currently using an Apple XServe G5 as a PDC for 150 Windows XP
Pro machines. Everything worked well (sorta) under OS X 10.4 (Tiger)
but when we upgraded to 10.5 (Leopard) it just fell apart. I
reinstalled the OS several times and tried everything I could to get
it to wor
