[Samba] Good Bye SAMBA?!?!?

Steve Ankeny steve_a at cinergymetro.net
Wed Sep 28 13:27:14 UTC 2016

On 09/28/2016 08:53 AM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Steve Ankeny via samba
> <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>> On 09/28/2016 06:43 AM, Jonathan Hunter via samba wrote:
>>> On 28 September 2016 at 11:07, Sven Schwedas via samba
>>> <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>>>> Okay, can we ban the troll already?
>>> OK, here's a devil's advocate post from the other perspective :) Just
>>> because someone's views don't align with ones own, doesn't make them a
>>> troll. And it is definitely valuable to get feedback from users in
>>> terms of what features/functionality are useful to them; to find out
>>> where pain points are, etc. etc. What is important to one person may
>>> not be important to another, and so on.
>>> Having said that, the way in which feedback is given is important; and
>>> there is also a question as to whether the thread belongs on this list
>>> or in another forum..? Much of this could be categorised into a wider
>>> Windows vs Linux debate, or commandline vs GUI, I think - the OP seems
>>> to be conflating Linux and Samba together.
>> And, I think we don't understand his problem because he hasn't actually
>> stated his problem.
>> What were his commands that kept "trying over and over," and "trying over
>> and over" to do what?
>> THAT's what belongs on this list, not a general lament that "Samba doesn't
>> have gui tools" (which may be valid)
>        I think we need to understand where he is coming from. From his
> "Oh, I just bought Windows server, installed it, did some clicks and
> it worked!" message, he is rather entry level in the Windows server
> management mode. Or server management in general. At that level, sure
> Windows server seems pretty easy, but wait until you have to get
> serious about diagnosing it. Here are some easy peasy problems:
> - Why SCCM upgrades are not being taken by some desktops in the same
> OU of successful deployments when they all supposedly are getting the
> same AD policies.
> - You found out the current AD structure was put together by a
> click-monkey who understood nothing about corporate structure and
> proper OU layout. For instance, he made all computers users and put
> them out in a single OU and then use some gimmicks to apply, say, web
> server rules to the proper machines. Those gimmicks are held by
> Elmer's glue and it just started raining.
> - What to do when the master AD server takes a dump. Hint: AD does not
> really have multimaster replication.
> - Latency issues between a webserver and its database server. Hint:
> the Windows built-in packet capturing program sucks big hairy ones.
> Best thing would be wireshark, which was originally designed to run
> on... Microsoft Windows?
> - Hunting down malware. And I do not mean the lame signature-matching
> from the usual "antivirus programs" (term used loosely and
> condescendingly).
> - Just plain old performance issues with your fileserver: users are
> screaming everything is slow.
> - Failover issues between storage or database or webservers.
> - Tracking down source of phishing emails. Hint: in Office 365
> Microsoft will remove/sanitize the Received-From: headers; they will
> give them to you if you pay for their mail scanning software. Don't
> you feel too ready to wag a finger at the Redmond company: google
> seems to be doing the same.
> Now, these issues are above your click-monkey. For those here who are
> true systems managers/admins/analysts, they sound very similar to
> those found in Linux one time or another. And that is a point I did in
> my previous reply: a good Windows systems manager is a good systems
> manager, period. And they do things using scripts (powershell). The
> reality is that they are few and far between; the majority are
> click-monkeys who love the Staples' E-Z Button (anyone remember
> those?).
> To the OP (Gilberto?): until you can handle those issues you are not
> qualified to compare Linux vs Windows servers.
> On Microsoft's defense, let's talk about cost: if you are running
> Linux and need commercial support, RedHat would be the first place I
> would call. And, you will start getting into price structures that are
> similar to Microsoft (single server vs university-wide licenses and
> everything in between). Prices and quality of support might be
> different, but the principle is the same.
> Which leads to my pet peeve about open source: a lot of people who
> uses it are just moochers and bad ones at that. How many people do you
> know who has sent 5 bucks to openssl or python or postfix or even
> samba? I am not saying contributing with time and code, but cold hard
> cash. Now, how many people do you know who use those programs and
> bitch when they do not work as well as they expect? The reason RedHat
> has been able to support a lot of projects is because (1) they do make
> money and (2) they make money using those projects, so the selfish
> thing to do is make sure those projects are viable.
> I know companies who have no issues paying $150K yearly for a
> commercial product written by cargo-cult programmers but think that
> giving $5K for the open source version (in a specific case it is what
> they are trying to get funded so they can pay for a certification)
> which is much better is crazy talk. Perceived expectations FTW, right?
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
You have very accurately described the problems systems admins face and 
the differences between closed source and open, as well as the level of 
expertise required at the enterprise level (most of us fail at that level)

There are some real experts on this mailing list, and they've arrived 
there by the work they put into learning.  I'm not a click-monkey, but I 
fall far shorter than I want in the problems I face.  Experience is a 
great teacher.

thx for the dissertation

More information about the samba mailing list