On 3/24/02 9:14 AM, "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate
>> through Pam instead of using its own database?
>
> http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/winbindd.8.html
> winbindd is a daemon that provides a service for the Na
D]
>Subject: Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
>Date: 21 Mar 2002 12:47:02 -0800
>
>On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 09:15, Ed Wilts wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM -0500, David Kramer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote:
> > >
> >
On 3/24/02 1:12 AM, "David Talkington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 21:15, David Talkington wrote:
>>> Edward Marczak wrote:
>>>
Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba
> Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate
> through Pam instead of using its own database?
http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/winbindd.8.html
winbindd is a daemon that provides a service for the Name Service Switch
capability that is present in most modern C libra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gordon Messmer wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 21:15, David Talkington wrote:
>> Edward Marczak wrote:
>>
>> >Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate
>> >through Pam instead of using its own database?
>>
>> Yes, but yo
On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 21:15, David Talkington wrote:
> Edward Marczak wrote:
>
> >Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate
> >through Pam instead of using its own database?
>
> Yes, but you may have to roll your own. See --with-pam and
> - --with-pam_smbpass optio
... The copy of the message I sent which I received was incomplete. I'm
resending it.
On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 07:26, Ed Wilts wrote:
> OE mangled your message - it came through entirely as an attachment so
it's
> a little more awkward for me to reply, so I'm leaving your message
intact at
> the bo
On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 21:00, Edward Marczak wrote:
>
> ...and a third: sites with mixed clients. Ever try to serve people who hop
> around between Macs *and* PCs? While possible, it's not pretty. However,
> with NetWare or 2000, both clients share the same password to authenticate
> and groups
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Edward Marczak wrote:
>Which makes me ask: Have I just missed a way to have samba authenticate
>through Pam instead of using its own database?
Yes, but you may have to roll your own. See --with-pam and
- --with-pam_smbpass options to configure. Th
On 3/21/02 12:15 PM, "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM -0500, David Kramer wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote:
>>
>> Today, there is only one valid reason for not using a Linux box with Samba
>> to replace NT shares or Netware.
>
> [compa
Warning
Unable to process data:
multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=_ascension.dragonsdawn.net-5900-1016909983-0001-2"
?In my opinion, XFS just hasn't been out
long enough on Linux to prove long-term stability and vendor committment.
.../Ed
Ed Wilts
Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Messmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 15:00, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:47:02PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >
> > Have you looked at XFS on Linux? Using Samba on XFS (or ext3 with ACLs)
> > should give you what you need:
> > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
> > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ed Wilts wrote:
>All this leads me back to my original comments - there is lots of work going
>on, and I'm sure we'll have good ACL support eventually, but today it's not
>there for most of us. You might get something work that works for you, but
>
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:47:02PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> Have you looked at XFS on Linux? Using Samba on XFS (or ext3 with ACLs)
> should give you what you need:
> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/102_installer.html
Start with the FAQ and you'll very
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 09:15, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM -0500, David Kramer wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote:
> >
> > Today, there is only one valid reason for not using a Linux box with Samba
> > to replace NT shares or Netware.
>
> [compatibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ed Wilts wrote:
>Actually, there is a 2nd reason. Linux with Samba simply does not have the
>access control mechanisms that NT does, and this limits the granularity of
>access. For some businesses (like ours), this is a show stopper. Linux ACL
>s
> Linux is not the answer to every problem. It's getting better, but for
some
> tasks, Windows is still superior.
Evil, Evil I tell you!
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:37:25AM -0500, David Kramer wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote:
>
> Today, there is only one valid reason for not using a Linux box with Samba
> to replace NT shares or Netware.
[compatibility reason cut]
Actually, there is a 2nd reason. Linux with S
The gartner group says otherwise about Apache. They recommended last
year that people migrate from IIS to some OTHER web server product such
as Apache.
Speaking of which. I used both products for years. I haven't had a
problem with my Apache servers over the last 4 years however the IIS
s
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Scott Sharkey wrote:
> The mindcraft "study" was bought and paid for by Microsoft, and has
> been widely shown to be fraudulent and invalid. MANY, many articles
> have been written about the multitude of ways in which they skewed
> the results to favor MS. In addition, ther
21 matches
Mail list logo
