[Samba] Good Bye SAMBA?!?!?

[v g]

Klaus Hartnegg via samba wrote:
> On 28.09.2016 at 01:31 Gilberto Nunes wrote:
>> I am working harding for weeks to make things work properly to implement
>> samba and glusterfs and ZFS , to deploy storage sincronization 
>> between two
>> servers.
>> Today I just install Windows 2012 R2 and play around with DFS and see 
>> how
>> so deadly simple!!!!
>> And I wonder: why Linux or samba or both do not have similar tools to 
>> make
>> things less painful....
>
> This comment was clearly not a rant that samba has no GUI, as some 
> have written here. It is a complaint that important functionality is 
> either missing or does not work, and requires tedious workarounds.
>
> This misunderstanding confirms my suspicion that most samba admins 
> have no idea how easy and enormously useful DFS and DFS-R are (and 
> that many may not want to keep using Samba it they would know).
Really? Easy and useful, huh? That's why i can't get our windows 
sysadmins to fix that PoS? DFS is an ugly underdeveloped hack! By your 
own admission you need scripts to tell whether DFS-R is currently in 
sync or not - WTF kind of BS is that for a GUI OS?

>
> On Windows servers I provide ALL shares via domain-based DFS, and 
> replicate all directories with DFS-R to a second server. This is all 
> very easy to setup and works just great. If one server was down, it 
> quickly catches up, fully automatic, and without recursing through all 
> directories. I can switch the users to the replica server just by 
> running a small script that adjusts DFS priorities. This is wonderful, 
> because it allows me to upgrade servers when I want, not when it fits 
> the users, because there is no downtime.
>
> But unfortunately some servers here are running Samba.
>
> Tell a Windows admin that Samba is still unable to replicate its own 
> Sysvol directory, and they will laugh at you. The docs say that 
> domain-based DFS works for some. What does that mean? Does it work or 
> does it not work? And which docs should I read? Samba still hosts docs 
> that are so outdated that they cause more confusion than they provide 
> help. How many years did it take to fix that tiny backup script to 
> always use tdbbackup? Is it really correct now? Does it still need to 
> be pulled from the source tarball? For Windows 10 I need to go back to 
> protocol version 1, which Microsoft is about to disable by default. 
> Whoa?!! For AD I must manually give all users a numerical ID? And the 
> tab where this must be done is now going away! Are you joking? This 
> means that things are getting worse instead of better. I must even 
> seriously doubt the future of the whole project when it keeps 
> depending on things that Microsoft has deprecated long ago and is 
> about to expire. I had hoped that samba would eventually catch up a 
> bit, but it rather feels like the distance to Microsoft is growing.
wasn't SMB3_11 issue solved in SAMBA 4.3 like a year ago? meaning, what 
- two months after windows 10 release? now - i haven't used SAMBA as AD 
DC yet, so can't comment about other issues.

>
> Sure, Samba does also have advantages, but it costs me way too much 
> time. I need something that just works out of the box, and is not 
> severly limited to the most basic functionality. Windows server 
> eventually also needs scripts for things that should be included (like 
> for example to tell whether DFS-R is currently in sync or not), but 
> the level where this requirement starts is higher. And it is much 
> easier to find the right commands and required options, because there 
> is much better documentation.
>
> sorry to disappoint you
> Klaus
>