Problems with samba as PDC

[Mike Westkamper]

>From a lurker hereabouts, I suggest this is a good idea. Many of the parameters
in Samba and Unix components as well are steeped in myth. Only those who have
traveled to the mount can understand them.  My vote is:  A lot of simple stuff
instead of a little complex stuff. Use real words instead of abbreviations,
especially ones that are not obvious to the common man.

Mike


Mike Harris wrote:

> 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