> From: David Mandala <
davidm@them.com>:
> Actually there is another option for those that
> liked the NT4 domains or
> those that need /are required to maintain a
> mixed Windows/Linux
> environment. SAMBA will happily do NT4 domains
> and shortly W2k domains
> and Linux will quite easily authenticate
> against it. Not that I'd go
> that way but it is an option for those that
> have a mixed environment.
Almost forgot about that one. Yes, SAMBA. From
my limited vantage point, it seems the reasons
against using SAMBA in this way would be:
1) it's not "native" to *nix, meaning it might
not perform as well as LDAP or NIS, and there
might be less flexibility down the road. But is
this true?
2) it's a stop-gap. If my goal is to rid myself
of the bondage inherent in a MS Active
Directory/Exchange network (although still
willing to use individual MS systems when that
makes sense), then might it not be better to go
with what I would have chosen at the outset, if
MS weren't in the picture? That is, choose the
best authentication system, not the one that
makes migration easiest?
On the other hand, might not SAMBA make migration
so much easier that this would outweigh the
disadvantages? That question, in turn, might
depend for it's answer on how tough it is to
switch from SAMBA to something like LDAP, after
the migration is complete. Can anyone address
that?
And finally, I have to wonder, why not SAMBA,
period? If I throw out all my prejudices for
doing things the *nix way, I am left with: Why is
SAMBA not a fine authentication system to use?
Just because it's a hack from a MS system? Is it
so bad as the backend for your network
authentication? Dave, why wouldn't you "go that
way"?
Thanks,
Scott
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
(text/plain)