Samba as Domain Controller
t.gildersleeve at bilk.ac.uk
Mon Mar 5 12:28:35 GMT 2001
I think here we are in an argument of semantics! To the everyday user who
just wants to get on with it, most people I speak to do not know the
difference between a domain controller and a win95 logon server. This is
not helped my MS having the "logon to domain" box in win9x. However, I
think that most people know what people mean when they say that they want a
win9x client to belong to a domain. They just mean that they want to logon
to it. To them this *IS* the domain controller.
To all win9x users wanting a *domain controller*, just stick with 2.0.7. It
has all the *domain controller* features that you will need.
You dont need the *advanced NT Domain controller features that will be in
2.2 unless you have NT, 2000 clients.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sharpe [SMTP:sharpe at ns.aus.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 6:33 PM
> To: Greg J. Zartman; Kristyan Osborne; samba-ntdom at us4.samba.org
> Subject: Re: Samba as Domain Controller
> At 12:59 PM 3/2/01 -0800, Greg J. Zartman wrote:
> >I'm catching alot of flake about my suggestion that win 9x machine be
> >of a domain.
> No, you are not catching a lot of flack! (Flake, BTW, are shark fillets
> We are simply suggesting that you do not need the domain controller stuff.
> In point of fact, there is almost no difference between a domain
> setup and a non-domain controller setup :-)
> The only difference is the presence of machine trust accounts and whether
> or not the clients use MSRPC for logging on etc.
> However, 2.0.7 should work for you except for the Win2K machines.
> >Here is the question that I would ask anyone considering whether to use a
> >workgroup setup of a domain? Do you need to control access to certain
> >shares and do you enjoy spending all of you time configuring peoples
> >Personally, I like having the ability to restrict access to certain
> >on my network. I also don't like to spend all of my time configuring
> >machines and updating usernames and passwords. That's why I use a
> >If someone changes their password, the change is recorded in one place
> >accessible by all.
> Ummm, for Win9X machines, there is no difference between a domain and a
> workgroup. Samba only has a workgroup parameter, not a domain parameter.
> That is because a domain, as far as the protocols are concerned, is a
> workgroup with a centralized password server.
> >From the typical users standpoint, the network functions exactly the same
> >regardless of what type of client OS.. The typical Win 9x user can't
> >into network shares any easier than a Win NT client.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Kristyan Osborne" <kris.ozzy at lineone.net>
> >To: "samba" <samba-ntdom at us4.samba.org>
> >Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:37 PM
> >Subject: RE: Samba as Domain Controller
> >> I agree! In my old job at a school all client machines were win 95. A
> >> machine can only be part of a workgroup and not a domain. Thus a domain
> >> controller with a machine password database would make no sence if win
> >> only validating a username and password.
> >> We used a 2.0.7 server as a file-server with the user password
> >> I am currently working on a NT 4 network with all clients NT4 wks
> >> by a samba server which is a PDC, as a machine database is required.
> >> Cheers
> >> Kris
> >> -------------
> >> Computers are like airconditioners: They stop working
> >> properly if you open windows.
> >> Win95: A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an
> >> 8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a
> >> 2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: samba-ntdom-admin at us5.samba.org
> >> [mailto:samba-ntdom-admin at us5.samba.org]On Behalf Of Richard Sharpe
> >> Sent: 02 March 2001 16:19
> >> To: Greg J. Zartman; samba-ntdom at us5.samba.org
> >> Subject: Re: Samba as Domain Controller
> >> At 08:52 AM 3/2/01 -0800, Greg J. Zartman wrote:
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Richard Sharpe" <sharpe at ns.aus.com>
> >> >To: "Adam Lang" <aalang at rutgersinsurance.com>;
> ><samba-ntdom at us5.samba.org>
> >> >Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:08 AM
> >> >Subject: Re: Samba as Domain Controller
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> At 04:23 PM 2/28/01 -0500, Adam Lang wrote:
> >> >> >I'm looking into using Samba as the domain controller for my
> >> >(about
> >> >> >75 users on windows 9x).
> >> >>
> >> >> For Win9X machines you do not need a PDC. Samba 2.0.7 will do fine
> >> >> these machines.
> >> >
> >> >This doesn't make any sense. What does the client OS have to do with
> >> >weather or no you need a PDC??? A PDC basically centralizes netword
> >> >on one machine. The client OS makes no difference.
> >> Sigh,
> >> it makes eminent senses when you realize that Microsoft does not use
> >> Domain Controller protocols (Encrypted RPCs) for Win9X logons, but does
> >> WinNT and Windows 2000.
> >> Thus, the client OS makes a big difference. Take my word for it, lots
> >> people are using Samba 2.0.7 and below as a logon server for Windows
> >> and ME, and have been doing so for years.
> >> You do need to set the parameter 'domain logons = yes'. And, you might
> >> 'encrypt passwords = yes', but then again, you might not.
> >> Regards
> >> -------
> >> Richard Sharpe, sharpe at ns.aus.com
> >> Samba (Team member, www.samba.org), Ethereal (Team member,
> >> Contributing author, SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours
> >> Author, Special Edition, Using Samba
> Richard Sharpe, sharpe at ns.aus.com
> Samba (Team member, www.samba.org), Ethereal (Team member,
> Contributing author, SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours
> Author, Special Edition, Using Samba
More information about the samba-ntdom