Using 2.0.7 vs. 2.2.0-alpha3

[Greg J. Zartman]

Dan,

Have a look at this article
(http://www.programmers.net/mirrors/lg/issue29/coldiron.html ).  This is
what convinced me to switch me Win2000 server to Samba (that and the fact
that I was always rebooting and/or restarting services on the Win2000
machine).

In my opinion, Samba 2.2 is alpha in name only.  I'm currently running it on
Mandrake Linux 7.2 on a mixed windows client network (80% win2000, 10% Win
NT 4.0, 10% Win 98).  I'm being completely honest in saying that I haven't
had a problem one with the software, other than mistakes I made in
configuring the system.  In fact, my new Linux server has been up and
running, without a reboot, for almost two months now.

One thing that I'm finding in using Samba is that you have to be a little
creative in setting up a Windows network.  For the most part, I'm using a
pretty basic configuration.  I haven't spend the time to learn how to
implement some of the more "advanced" domain functionality currently being
worked on in Samba.  One example would be the ability to modify
directory/file security settings using the "point and click" method (i.e.,
right click on a directory and modify the groups and/or users that have
access rights).  At some point I'll get this working, but for the time
being, I simply goto the Linux box and modify security settings from there.

One thing to be aware of with Samba is that you shouldn't expect to get all
of the "bells and whistles" that a Windows setup will offer (especially
Win2000).  Win 2000 offers alot in the way of utilities through MMC for
administering just about everything on your network (some of which can be a
little dangerous if you're not careful.  Alot of this stuff is "neat" and I
thought I would it going to Samba, but I haven't.  Samba is a very stable,
fast, and easy to maintain setup.   I couldn't be more pleased with my
decision to switch.

If you do decide to switch, drop me an email.  I may be able to offer some
advice that could speed your setup time.  Good luck.

Greg



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Perik" <dan_perik-work at ntm.org.pg>
To: <samba-ntdom at samba.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 4:16 PM
Subject: Using 2.0.7 vs. 2.2.0-alpha3


>
> Hello,
>
> I'm working on evaluating Linux/Samba for use in our organization, and I
> need some input.  We have roughly 70 clients on our network, which are
> either Win9x or WinNT/2000.  We are currently using Novell Netware 4.x
> for our file server/print server/etc..  We now have 2 Win 2000 servers
> dedicated to our soon-to-be implemented accounting system.  And we have
> Linux hosting our e-mail and everything to do with it.  We're looking at
> simplifying our system, which will most likely mean dropping the Novell
> system.  So I'm evaluating using Linux/Samba vs. Win 2000 as our
> file/print server.  Since we have WinNT/2000 clients, and I'm needing
> domain logins, I believe I need to run 2.2.0.  But it's alpha.  If I
> can't have domain logins for WinNT/2000 clients, we may have to decide
> to go Win2000 as our file server (much to my dismay).  So my question is
> how alpha is 2.2.0-alpha3?  Is it stable enough to trust our file
> serving to for all our operations?  I mainly need the domain logins for
> logon scripts and possibly roaming profiles under WinNT/2000.  I also
> need the ease of creating machine accounts automatically (which I just
> got working yesterday).  Basically, in order to prove to the other guys
> that I'm working with that we should go Linux/Samba instead of Win2000,
> I have to prove that it's stable, easy to administer, and works well.
> What can you tell me?
>
> - Dan Perik
>
> --
> - Dan Perik
> Computer Services Department
> Lapilo Center
> New Tribes Mission - PNG
>
>
>
>
>
>