From: Tim Haynes < v...@vgis.demon.co.uk> Subject: Samba Roadmap ? Date: 1995/11/28 Message-ID: <817578859snz@vgis.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 120493409 x-nntp-posting-host: vgis.demon.co.uk organization: Vodafone Limited reply-to: v...@vgis.demon.co.uk newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb Greetings! There's various discussions about what might be going into Samba, but is there any sort of priority list or general roadmap of what lays ahead? For example, I have seen the proposal of adding the Netbeui protocol, but is it really so hard for people to sacrifice the 0.1% supposed performance benefit of Netbeui, and use the TCP/IP intergalactic standard protocol instead? For what it's worth, my suggested goal is for Samba to provide an effective alternative to NT Server as domain controller. My reasons: 1. Microsoft charges NT Server users for each connected user. William H Gates III already has quite enough of my money. 2. With Samba doing all our disk and print serving, the only thing I want NT Server for is the benefit of centralised admin, mostly user admin - and particularly centralised password validation. 3. It's a real pain having two different password validation systems. Samba is already a marvel, but a Samba that could do the central user administration bit of a domain controller would be the most stunningly brilliant software ever! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Haynes "Baseball" - In England we call it "Rounders", (My own views) and it's played by small girls ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dav...@gil.com.au (David Connors) Subject: Re: Samba Roadmap ? Date: 1995/11/30 Message-ID: < DIuFAx.1EK@gil.com.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 120493417 x-nntp-posting-host: sysadmin2.ipswich.gil.com.au sender: n...@gil.com.au references: <817578859snz@vgis.demon.co.uk> organization: Global Info-Links newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb In article <817578859...@vgis.demon.co.uk>, Tim Haynes < v...@vgis.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Greetings! > >There's various discussions about what might be going into Samba, but is >there any sort of priority list or general roadmap of what lays ahead? > >For example, I have seen the proposal of adding the Netbeui protocol, but >is it really so hard for people to sacrifice the 0.1% supposed performance >benefit of Netbeui, and use the TCP/IP intergalactic standard protocol >instead? > >For what it's worth, my suggested goal is for Samba to provide an effective >alternative to NT Server as domain controller. My reasons: > >1. Microsoft charges NT Server users for each connected user. > William H Gates III already has quite enough of my money. > >2. With Samba doing all our disk and print serving, the only thing > I want NT Server for is the benefit of centralised admin, mostly > user admin - and particularly centralised password validation. > >3. It's a real pain having two different password validation systems. > >Samba is already a marvel, but a Samba that could do the central user >administration bit of a domain controller would be the most stunningly >brilliant software ever! My sentiments exactly. This would give us lan manager/unix universal logons like YP or NIS. I would love to have our HPs and NT boxes with syncronised security. Cheers, Dave. ----------------------------------------------------------- David Connors dav...@gil.com.au
From: tridge@fjall (Andrew Tridgell) Subject: Re: Samba Roadmap ? Date: 1995/12/02 Message-ID: < TRIDGE.95Dec2123146@fjall>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 120694446 distribution: world references: <817578859snz@vgis.demon.co.uk> < DIuFAx.1EK@gil.com.au> organization: Australian National University reply-to: Andrew.Tridg...@anu.edu.au newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb > >There's various discussions about what might be going into Samba, but is > >there any sort of priority list or general roadmap of what lays ahead? I have a sort of vague plan in my head. I occasionally send a message to the mailing list which spells out my plans. I'll probably do one soon. > >Samba is already a marvel, but a Samba that could do the central user > >administration bit of a domain controller would be the most stunningly > >brilliant software ever! > > My sentiments exactly. This would give us lan manager/unix universal > logons like YP or NIS. > > I would love to have our HPs and NT boxes with syncronised security. Yep, this is one of the things I want to do as well. I have already managed to hack something together to get Win95 to use samba as a security server (when win95 is in user level security) but there are pieces of it missing. The biggest missing bit is the protocol used to exchange SAM information. I'll work on that when I get some time. Eventually I'd like samba to be able to interact correctly with NT servers for domain information. Note that it is quite likely that you will have the use the encrypted password option in samba for this to work. I don't know if this is the case yet, but my current guess is that it is. This means integrating it with a standard unix /etc/passwd may not be possible. Andrew