[Samba] Re: XP Home and Samba? and: two network cards?

[rruegner]

Hi, i just agree in domain things win 98 is the better solution,
but on the other hand win 98 is more like dos with mouse....in my opinion
win 2000 prof with service packs applied is the best os in production
systems today
note: i have worked in a company
with 10000 workstations an they will never upgrade to win xp prof.
The very talented win admins there say never use ms os before serv pack 2 is
rolled out
this just for info.
Yesterday i setup win xp prof a old older machine and it resulutes in
several failures
with old hardware and office 2000.....in a stable enviroment this is not
acceptable
win 2000 works like charme. I will wait for longhorn.....
and then decide what to do next.....i read a lot of failures here with exel
, word etc.
Note many of that failure are related to ms ( using technet sometimes
creates knowledge )
In a big network you will get to know which tons of bugs are in office and
windows...which arent related to samba in anyway. Since ever ms solds their
os as a kind of beta version.
In the debian way i would say win 2000/sp4 is stable as the only one.
Also here are often Questions about Domain control ( pdc ) with samba,
Sometimes i think people should study more the domain strategy which will
give them answers.
Samba is wonderfull work but it cant wipe out all failures which exist in
win ( all versions)
and in ton of buggy software which is in use on this systems.
I try to setup all services in Linux if possible and talk to users to use
Gnu Products , i know users are lazy and dont wanna click in an other way
but they do everytime they have to switch in another windows version too (
so i dont give up the fight )
So this was my words to sunday *rofl
Have a nice weekend
Best Regards

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gémes Géza" <geza at kzsdabas.sulinet.hu>
To: "Dan Bar" <Daniel.Bar at seznam.cz>
Cc: <samba at lists.samba.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Re: XP Home and Samba? and: two network cards?


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dan Bar írta:
> |
> |
> | Markus Vorpahl wrote:
> |
> |>
> |> I applied the SignOrSeal registry change manually, but still no shares.
> |> Until now, in smb.conf there was security = user set, so there was no
> |> domain
> |> logon by the WIN98 stations either. Reading the text in
> |> http://samba.kn.vutbr.cz/samba/devel/docs/html/domain-member.html:
> |> if I only want to share shares, files and printers, let people read and
> |> write, is domain logon really needed? Aparently, until now there was
> |> none..
> |
> |
> | We were just guessing. If you use only Win9x and WinXP home, then you do
> | not need to set up a Samba as Primary Domain Controller. These MS OSs
> | cannot take an advantage of use of domains. Its only usefull in case you
> | use Win2k or XP Pro as desktop OS.
> |
> Sorry, but I don't agree. It can be usefull for Win9x clients, to have a
> domain, because then they are able to logon to a WindowsNT Domain, and
> thus having all the benefits, of logon scripts, roaming profiles, and
> policies. So from this point of view they are a better choice than XP
> Home clients, which can't use a domain at all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Geza Gemes
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQE/pMLo/PxuIn+i1pIRAkhTAJ4t3cj838bZ2awdJZIi3+A/yXHPSACbBiov
> 3WfQfrsoZHeuYC1+a8Adf6c=
> =dcmG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>
>