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

ntb at ntb at
Wed Jan 9 06:58:29 GMT 2002


Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:

> 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.

I didn't compare samba's rpc parser with tng's one. I'm talking about freedce.
Best thing we can get is samba's superior filesharing code (which improved
by many developers by long time) working together with freedce's (not TNG!)
rpc server. Which allow, in particularity, running some nice domain controller
things from Luke Leighton. I didn't say from tng, he rewrite that code completely
with freedce. Or, maybe, You think samba's rpc parser is much better than freedce's?

> > (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 ?

What do You offer me to write myself? file and print sharing server equivalent to samba?

It take more than one century to do it alone for me. So it isn't an potion.

>         J.F.

SMTP /Perece/.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list