[Samba] Which Samba version?
L.P.H. van Belle
belle at bazuin.nl
Thu Nov 21 01:49:00 MST 2013
I know your not bashing debian Rowland. ;-)
Thats ok, i know you want to do good. ( like me and everybody on the samba list. )
Im just pointing out how good debian is.
Debian doesnt have a time table for released, why, its ready when its ready,
and when released, the old stable is supported 1 year after release of the latest stable.
Why does ubuntu have a time table for support, because of its commercial background.
And thats logical also. and yes for companies, its better to use Ubuntu LTS for the support.
For me, i dont need that kind support, i'll fix these things myself of ask the debian developer.
im using debian more then 12 years now. started with potato..
Even when upgrade, i've had serveral time that ubuntu breaked my os while upgrading ( also with LTS versions),
and with debian i never have had that. thats why debian i.m.h.o doesnt need Long term support.
Its just what you prefer. I like debian, i like ubuntu and i like Mint ( for desktop )
Just a pointer..
>Van: Rowland Penny [mailto:rowlandpenny at googlemail.com]
>Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 9:29
>Aan: L.P.H. van Belle; samba at lists.samba.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Which Samba version?
>On 21/11/13 08:07, L.P.H. van Belle wrote:
>> I can advice you to first upgrade the pdc to 3.6
>> but, 3.6 is is not maintained anymore and only gets security fixes.
>> Its better you invest your time in getting samba4 running.
>> look here. Follow it to the letter and it wil work.
>> and really, to the letter. ( its a domain join but you can
>use it to setup a single server also.
>> the steps are the same for debian wheezy.
>> If your network is upgrading from XP to Win7, its really
>advices to go to samba4.
>> and yes, i can understand why Rowland is saying get the source..
>> But thats not why we have apt.
>> Which os?
>> I prefer debian, but for better hardware support on my Dell
>server im using Ubuntu 12.04 lts. ( adviced for OMSA )
>> Yes debian also works fine on Dell but the drivers of ubuntu
>are adviced by dell.
>> And yes Rowland, version (6) was only supported for about 2
>1/2 years, but if you want stable..
>> there is only 1 stable OS, which is ongoing, and which is
>safe with upgrading and thats Debian.
>> Ive tested, so many distro's, and im always going back to
>debian. just look here http://distrowatch.com/
>> en you see 1 2 3, mint, debian ubuntu .. ( all Debian os based )
>I am not knocking debian, just pointing out that the long support time
>seems to be a thing of the past, yes it is stable but just not for as
>long. In my opinion (again for what it is worth) if you what
>to go down
>the debian path, use Ubuntu 12.04 server, this will have support until
>2017, possibly longer than wheezy will have, based on how long squeeze
>> My old PDC was debian sarge, and now debian lenny and its
>still running fine.
>> FOr me why debian :
>> PDC Uptime 653days. upgrade from sarge to lenny
>> BDC Uptime 886days. upgraded from etch to lenny
>> XEN uptime 1632 days. ( with 4 virtuals running )
>> But this is only my experiance.. You wil find yours...
>> If you want a quick test, get the this one:
>> and try samba4.
>> Good luck in choosing.
>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>> Van: samba1 at nym.hush.com
>>> [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens samba1 at nym.hush.com
>>> Verzonden: woensdag 20 november 2013 18:36
>>> Aan: samba at lists.samba.org
>>> Onderwerp: [Samba] Which Samba version?
>>> Following on from my post about problems installing SerNet on
>>> Debian, and Rowland’s suggestion to start “yet again, forget
>>> sernet, download and compile samba 4.1.1 and then use it just like
>>> samba 3.6”.
>>> I’m looking to migrate an existing Samba 3.1 PDC to a new server,
>>> and thought that using the latest 3.6 release made sense. I have
>>> to replicate the old server on the new one, and make sure there are
>>> no problems with the SIDs etc on all the existing PCs. Basically,
>>> the new server just has to take over, and work! I did test this a
>>> while back, and got a test migration to work with Debian Squeezy.
>>> I’ve not used Samba 4 before, and always had it in the back of my
>>> mind that it might not yet be as stable as 3, plus for now I don’t
>>> need AD. I thought it might be easier to just put the new server
>>> in with Samba 3, and then perhaps look at an upgrade-in-place to 4
>>> if ever needed.
>>> My options appear to be:
>>> 1. Keep the 3.6.6 as bundled with Debian Wheezy. Are there any
>>> problems with this? Currently all PCs are WinXP, but after the new
>>> server goes in I’ll need to install some Windows 7/8 PCs. I did
>>> test a Windows 7 PC with the Debian Squeezy Samba (3.5.6?), and it
>>> worked okay.
>>> 2. Install the Debian Backports 3.6.19 version (as suggested by
>>> Louis). I didn’t know about this until Louis mentioned it.
>>> 3. Try to get SerNet 3.6.20 working – I thought this might have
>>> been an easy install, but I could be doing something wrong. I’ve
>>> had a quick look, and did see someone else had a similar problem
>>> with SerNet on a Uubunto server, where it uninstalled Gnome. There
>>> was no follow-up so I’m not sure if this was resolved.
>>> 4. Look at Samba 4. However, with my timescales, I wouldn’t want
>>> to look at this if it’s a completely different beastie. As I say,
>>> I should be able to get the migration working to 3.6, but I’d be
>>> worried that migrating to 4 might introduce a lot more problems and
>>> I’m interested to know what you think would be the best option(s).
>>> Thanks again.
>>> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>>> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
More information about the samba