| 1 |
On 02/25/2013 06:03 AM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>>> I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows |
| 5 |
>>>> focused. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> ... But samba is... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Actually, no. That's why I've been so excited about Samba 4, and why I'm |
| 12 |
setting it up at home. AD is actually a very powerful network |
| 13 |
administration tool, and it's not necessary to think of it as a "Windows |
| 14 |
thing". Think of it more like a sane replacement of NIS, tying in NTP |
| 15 |
and DNS management as well. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> As far as the thread in general goes, the question arises, if you're |
| 20 |
> running both samba and nfs, why? They're both network-based-filesystems |
| 21 |
> that in theory at least should have reasonably similar functionality, so |
| 22 |
> an admittedly not particularly clueful reaction is "if it hurts when you |
| 23 |
> do that, stop doing it". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's incredibly rare to see a uniform enterprise network. Every one I've |
| 26 |
witnessed is heterogenous. The reasons usually come in a mix of these |
| 27 |
flavors: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
1) There's no policy for homogeneity. |
| 30 |
2) Department A does it one way, department B does it another way, and |
| 31 |
both departments are largely autonomous. |
| 32 |
3) There needs to be integration between system A and system B, and |
| 33 |
neither of those systems can reasonably be expected to change from their |
| 34 |
current state. |
| 35 |
4) Someone mandated a "solution" that only supports X and Y, and it's |
| 36 |
not worth the resources and risk of revamping the entire rest of the |
| 37 |
network to meet that spec natively. |
Archives