[Samba] which version best to use right now?

[Andrew Masterson]

> On 11/04/09 17:59, Andrew Masterson wrote:
> >> From: samba-bounces at lists.samba.org
> >>
> > [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org]
> >
> >> On Behalf Of Philip Brown
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:41 PM
> >> To: samba at lists.samba.org
> >> Subject: [Samba] which version best to use right now?
> >>
> >> hiya folks,
> >> I've been trying to figure out which branch of samba is best for us
to
> >>
> > use.
> >
> >> I read the FAQ, and it seems a little out of date. or at best,
lacking
> >>
> > in info.
> >
> >> It says that, "The current stable, production Samba server is the
> >>
> > Samba 3.2
> >
> >> branch."
> >>
> >> If that is the case.. then why are there **THREE** other branches?
> >>
> >> why is there also a 3.3, *and* a 3.4, *and* a 4.x branch?
> >>
> >> To give an idea of my criteria: I'm looking for a version that will
be
> >>
> > part
> >
> >> of a large-scale server for the next few years, as a member of an
> >>
> > ms-windows
> >
> >> active directory
> >>
> >>
> > What OS are you using?  If you're using something like RHEL or SUSE
I
> > would go with the vendor-packaged kit and forget any of the bleeding
> > edge stuff.  Red Hat is still on 3.0.33, but they seem to keep it
more
> > up to date that a generic 3.0.33 release, and I would go with that -
it
> > performs just fine and should have all the functionality you need.
> > (unless you end up in a strange AD environment that you need more
> > current AD support, but I severely doubt it)
> >
> > -=Andrew
> >
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

> But it looks like Samba 3.0.x is not going to support Windows 7?
>