samba netbios / namedpipes domination: a comparison with linu x having a proprietary web server built-in

Jean Francois Micouleau Jean-Francois.Micouleau at
Wed Jan 9 05:52:06 GMT 2002

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 ntb at wrote:

> Greetings.
> Jeremy Allison wrote:
> Not so fast, please. Plugin (in form Andrew described before) allows only
> adding an rpc service on additional pipe (an one samba is not listening itself)
> It makes impossible using samba as fileserver with Luke's domain controller stuff
> (dce/rpc based netlogon, samr and lsarpc) which is, in my opinion,
> best solution not just for me, but for all who wants nt4 compartible domain
> controller

that's your opinion. The fact is that the rpc parser code in samba is
better than in TNG, it's been like that for more than a year. And the rpc
server code too, some of us have spend huge quantity of time improving it.

> (in perspective with almost all functionality, not just what samba team counts
> 'sufficient')
> with fileserver with acceptible performance (which samba tng is not).
> Ideally it must use AD-compartible schema in ldap (for using winxp and w2k w/o
> 'rpc domain controller fallback') - but this is another story, I don't want
> discuss it here.

yes you should not discuss it here, you clearly don't know what you're
talking about. Even in native mode, W2K does use RPC.

> > That was I can continue with "NOT CARING"
> > (which Luke thinks is an offence :-) whilst the people who
> > want to care about DCE/RPC named pipes can happily work within that framework.
> While samba controls arbitrary pipes itself it is almost impossible. I don't talk
> here about osexchange
> or something like, it can be implemented thithin this framework.
> But if it allows only adding but not replacing pipe handlers, it's more correct to
> say
> 'can UNhappily work (or try to work)'

why don't you write the code yourself instead of arguing ?


More information about the samba-technical mailing list