MS "breaking" Samba
Buchan Milne
bgmilne at ing.sun.ac.za
Wed Sep 27 13:09:27 GMT 2000
File permissions for done don't show the file owner/group, instead
something that looks like an SID.
Buchan
"Arjona, Ariel" wrote:
>
> 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!
--
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager
Cellphone +27824722231
email mailto:bgmilne at ing.sun.ac.za
Centre for Automotive Engineering http://www.sun.ac.za/cae
South Africas first satellite: http://sunsat.ee.sun.ac.za
Control Models http://www.control.co.za
|----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------|
More information about the samba-ntdom
mailing list