Problems with samba as PDC

[Mike Harris]

Matthias,

I have checked out your patch, but I'm inclined to agree with Kevin, we
shouldn't further over-complicate the parameter settings.  As I mentioned
before, perhaps we should make the secuiry parameter more Windows world
friendly (even though this creates duplicity and redundancy in the
parameters.  Another suggestion, how about:

security=

SHARE (level), USER (level), SERVER (remote server), MEMBER (domain member),
PDC and BDC ?

In that way, I think there'll be less confusion for newbies (especially
those well-versed in a Windows environment)

??

Mike Harris,
Psand España.

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Colby <kevinc at grainsystems.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-NTDOM <samba-ntdom at samba.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: Problems with samba as PDC


> Matthias Wächter wrote:
> >
> > Sigh. Is really noone interested in my patch?
>
> *chuckle*
>
> While your patch certainly does a more accurate job of modeling
> the security mechanism, I must admit that I think it is even
> more complicated than the current system.  I find it hard to
> justify creating yet another option that will inevitably confuse
> the users further.  Adding an alias or two to the current system
> to clarify things sounds a lot simpler.
>
> - Kevin Colby
>   kevinc at grainsystems.com