MS "breaking" Samba

[Arjona, Ariel]

I've been running SAMBA 2.0.6-48 on SuSE6.4, and didn't have any problems
seeing the shares with my w2k workstation.
What are the problems people have with SAMBA < 2.0.7?

--
Ariel Arjona
Webmaster
aarjona at banistmo.com
http://www.banistmo.com


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Simo Sorce [SMTP:simo.sorce at polimi.it]
	Sent:	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 11:39 AM
	To:	Gerald Carter
	Cc:	Paul Leach; samba-ntdom at samba.org
	Subject:	Re: MS "breaking" Samba

	Gerald Carter wrote:
	> 
	> Long message notice.....
	> 
	> Simo Sorce wrote:
	> >
	> > > Paul Leach wrote:
	> > >
	> > > We have never added any improvements (or
	> > > non-improvements) to the protocols in order to
	> > > "break" Samba (or to affect it in any way at
	> > > all).  We tested Win2k against Samba as a file
	> > > server to make sure that it continued to work
	> > > as a "down-level" server, along with NT4,
	> > > OS/2, Windows 9x, and others. Of course, it (just
	> > > like NT4) would not support the new Windows
	> > > 2000 features, by which we hope to entice our
	> > > customers to upgrade by providing new value to them.
	> > >
	> > > Just to be clear: we didn't test Win2k against Samba as
	> > > a DC; we did test against NT4 DCs, however, so if
	> > > Samba really does emulate all NT4 DC functionality,
	> > > it should have been OK.
	> > >
	> > > Paul
	> 
	> Hi Paul.  Haven't head a peep from you in a while.  Hope
	> things are well.  Just though I would inject that first.
	> 
	> > I'm not a Samba team member, but as I remember Samba
	> > needed to upgrade from 2.0.6 to 2.0.7 just to serve files
	> > to Win2k machines, so your claim that you tested Win
	> > 2000 against Samba to ensure compatibility as file
	> > server must be false!
	> >
	> > DC functionality was not supported so testing against it
	> > was obviously not required, anyway win2k does not
	> > function with samba 2.0.x in NT4 compatibility mode(how
	> > much compatible is then??)
	> >
	> > I hate to see this kind of statements from employee of
	> > a company that is proven to have made unfair practices, I
	> > think that if you care your personal reputation you
	> > should check twice and prove your statements before speaking.
	> 
	> Simo,  Antagonism doesn't help.  :-)    MS did clean
	> up many things in Win2k.  Perhaps the complaint is that
	> all the changes were not documented. (hey paul ;) )
	> 
	> So i will make another plea.  (quoting from a previous
	> request by Luke).  Any (or all) of the information
	> would be a good thing.
	> 
	>         i will move this off list after the
	>         initial request in case you would like
	>         to discuss this further
	> 
	> .....begin plea.........................


	I've not said they have broken things or they have not cleened up
the
	code, I said they cannot claim to have tested win2k against samba
for
	compatibility as as far I remember (am I correct) samba < 2.0.7 will
not
	be able to serve file to win2k and 2.0.7 come out after win2k also
to
	resolve this problem.
	Am I wrong?

	-- 
	Simo Sorce - Integrazione Sistemi Unix/Windows - Politecnico di
Milano
	E-mail: simo.sorce at polimi.it
	Tel.int: 02 2399 2425 - Fax.int. 02 2399 2451
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Be happy, use Linux!