NT5rc2 -> Samba PDC
slitt at troubleshooters.com
Sat Nov 20 22:57:45 GMT 1999
Any idea when 2.1 will be stable?
At 06:12 AM 11/21/1999 +1100, ekuiperba at cc.curtin.edu.au wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> jeremy, i _do_ want to punish / discourage people from using 2.0.X as a
>> PDC! the MSRPC services are old and ugly; the NT to unix mapping system
>> nails us to some smb.conf parameters i just threw in to loadparm.c so i
>> could get things working.
>> i would be very surprised if NT5rc2 can actually talk to 2.0.X MSRPC
>> services. NT5rc2 is far more robust and picky about the marshalled data
>> it will accept (a Good Thing :)
>> in the end, the patch to fix this damn stuff was modifications to two
>> lines. it's therefore pretty simple job to put or not put this in, with
>> the benefit that if you don't put it in, people won't be able to use NT5
>> with 2.0.X as a PDC.
>> i don't care if you like it, people: don't do it!!! you'll end up with
>> headaches later, trying to move to 2.1.X!
>It is all and good telling us to move to 2.1.X, but it is no good unless
>2.1.X is released and usable. I use 2.0.X as PDC for the moment because
>it is stable and there is no 2.1.X too speak of (no CVS doesn't cut it on
>Sorryu for my useless rant. I would just like it if 2.1.X could finally
>get out of the door, since 2.0.X really sucks as a PDC. Keep up the good
>work samba team.
>ekuiperba at cc.curtin.edu.au
>> gerald, the defining answer... i had one ten minutes ago :)
>> <a href="mailto:lkcl at samba.org" > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton </a>
>> <a href="http://www.cb1.com/~lkcl"> Samba and Network Development </a>
>> <a href="http://samba.org" > Samba Web site </a>
>> <a href="http://www.iss.net" > Internet Security Systems, Inc. </a>
More information about the samba-technical