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
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 11:33, Lewi wrote:
>
> well, when I'm trying to search information in internet, I found that
> linux with samba is slower than NT
> try a look at:
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
> I know that the result maybe can't be compared today
> does anyone kno
-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
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
> > 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!
No, realistic. If Linux apostles run around making like Linux can cure
cancer and grow hair, manag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Sharkey wrote:
>> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
>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 mult
> 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
It was my understanding that KeyLabs performed the follow up study and
demonstrated Samba was slightly slower than NT. Not surprising. I
wouldn't consider a system emulating something else to be just as fast
or better when compared apples to apples.
If you really need fast file server manipu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Lewi wrote:
>I have a job to replace Netware to linux as linux server on my division,
>
>well, when I'm trying to search information in internet, I found that
>linux with samba is slower than NT
>try a look at:
>http://www.mindcra
I remember that report. At first they wouldn't tell me when I called
who paid for the tests. It was only after a week of bitching how they
screwed up their tests that I finally received the answer.
There were things they did in their detailed analysis that proves they
boosted NT's default se
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
Samba is great, I use it home, at school, and at my office! Any ?s just
email me! Oh and its fast, i think faster than an NT server.
~brandon
>From: Lewi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: file server with linux
>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:33:13 -
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, there were some valid criticisms
of Linux in the report
29 matches
Mail list logo
