[Samba] MacOS and Linux file sharing: full AD or simple server?

[Valentijn Sessink]

Hi list, hi Rowland,

Thanks for your answer. However, I'm not sure I understand it. Starting 
smbstatus on my current server, all clients show "SMB3_11" for protocol? 
Isn't that what you mean with "SMBv1" (aka CIFS aka NT1)?

On 25-11-2024 17:45, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
> Valentijn Sessink via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>> Question: what are pros and cons for the following setups:
>> - current setup: using OpenLDAP for users, Samba for file sharing
>> - Using Samba for both (do I *need* it to be an AD? Or is it possible
>> to just use the LDAP infrastructure without the AD stuff?)
>> - Using a passwd/shadow infrastructure and just use Samba for file
>> sharing.
[...]
> Your major problem is that the old NT4-style domains (which is what you
> appear to be running) rely on SMBv1 and this is now turned off by
> default because it is very insecure.

Do you mean that this is (somewhat) obsolete?
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Standalone_Server 
or is this still viable?

[...]
> You could probably upgrade your existing setup to AD, but for such a
> small group of users, you are probably better off starting with a new
> AD domain, this way you can leave all the old ways behind (such as
> possibly having the same local users and domain users, IDs starting at
> 1000, etc). The one thing I always say, forget most of what you have

OK, but I *do* want local users to have the same Unix ID's, because the 
server also serves e-mail. Is that even possible?

> learnt about NT4-style domains, AD is different and better.

What is better about it?

Valentijn