Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 12th Jan 2006 20:55 UTC, submitted by Jane Walker
Internet & Networking Follow Ken Milberg as he sets up Samba-3 on RHEL4 server, so that Wintel clients can access file and print services like Wintel servers.
Order by: Score:
wylde342
Member since:
2005-08-12

I've done it a couple times, but each has had it's own trials/tribs.

Once you get your AD users accessing Linux/Samba with their correct permissions, only then can you tell the boss..."Hey, lookie!"

Reply Score: 1

Wintel
by klynch on Thu 12th Jan 2006 21:16 UTC
klynch
Member since:
2005-07-06

What does Intel have anything to do with this? The "Wintel" name is overused and rarely has any purpose.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wintel
by siride on Thu 12th Jan 2006 21:24 UTC in reply to "Wintel"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Perhaps the fact that Windows only runs on Intel and that Intel has made modifications because of feedback from Windows and Microsoft.

I think it's really just a way to say PC without including Linux/*BSD, which also run on Intel (among others) and standard PC, but aren't Windows.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Wintel
by DrillSgt on Thu 12th Jan 2006 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Wintel"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Perhaps the fact that Windows only runs on Intel and that Intel has made modifications because of feedback from Windows and Microsoft."

So does that mean I would use different steps to get my WinAMD (Windows-on-AMD) client to connect? And by what you wrote that Windows does not run on my AMD processor since it is not Intel?

Sorry..mod me down...couldn't resist... ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Wintel
by Tom K on Thu 12th Jan 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wintel"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

And who designed x86?

Yeah, there you go. There's the source of the name "WinTel". It doesn't take too much brainpower to figure it out. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wintel
by markjensen on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wintel"
markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

And who designed x86?

Yeah, there you go. There's the source of the name "WinTel". It doesn't take too much brainpower to figure it out. ;)


Are you trying to say Microsoft Windows was involved in the x86 archetecture design? Windows is hardly old enough.

Well, let's try just Microsoft (MS-Tel?). The 8086 and the 8088 (the start of the x86) were created in 1976 and 1977, according to this source: http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/35/

At this time, Microsoft was an applications company, with BASIC being its big product. They didn't start selling DOS until 1981, according to: http://www.tacktech.com/display.cfm?ttid=30

I am not seeing the Microsoft design influence possibility of the x86. In later years, they certainly influenced the development, but they weren't involved in 8086/88 design at all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Wintel
by joelito_pr on Fri 13th Jan 2006 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wintel"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

He's saying that Intel developed the x86 architecture, not MS. And besides, the most widely used OS on x86 _is_ Windows after all. So yeah, it's safe to say Wintel(and I'm typing from my x86 Ubuntu Box)

However I think it does makes the article look unprofessional

Edited 2006-01-13 02:42

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wintel
by BryanFeeney on Fri 13th Jan 2006 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wintel"
BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

At this stage it's more accurate to say Intel designed the x86 instruction-set. Both the Pentiums and the AMDs translate this to a RISC-like microcode.

Then there's the fact that Windows (via DirectX, and maybe more) supports AMD's 3DNow instruction-set extensions. So it's hardly exclusive to Intel.

Fact is, "Windows" should have been used, "Wintel" sounds a bit trollish. I'm sure the poster meant to indicate that the the server doesn't necessarily have to run an x86-compatible machine, but there are more professional ways of indicating that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wintel
by Tom K on Sat 14th Jan 2006 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wintel"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Ummmmm ... you missed the point.

I was replying to someone who talked about why they don't call it WinAMD. I said it's because Intel designed x86.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wintel
by rcsteiner on Thu 12th Jan 2006 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Wintel"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Since most folks (in terms of the general PC-using population) are probably going to be connecting Windows boxes to a Samba server, the use of the term "Wintel" is perhaps understandable.

However, referring to the clients as "Wintel clients" does seem to ignore the fact that any other OS on x86 which supports CIFS networking (e.g., OS/2 with or without Samba, or Linux/BSD/Solaris boxes running the Samba client) could also treat the Samba server as a Windows file and print server.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Wintel
by simo on Fri 13th Jan 2006 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Wintel"
simo Member since:
2006-01-09

actually it runs on alpha too, in fact i think that nt4 ran on alpha before intel.

and if you want to be really pedantic, it also runs on arm (pocket pc).

i also seem to recall a windows for sgi too?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wintel
by BryanFeeney on Fri 13th Jan 2006 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wintel"
BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows NT4 ran on x86, Alpha and MIPS processors.
Windows XP Professional runs on x86 and x86-64
Windows 2003 runs on x86, x86-64 and Itanium.

One of those instruction sets (x86-64) was designed by AMD, and Windows supports the 32-bit AMD-designed extensions called 3DNow.

Windows is not Intel only. I understand the poster was trying to get across that the server can run on more esoteric hardward like Sparc, but there are better ways of explaining that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wintel
by happycamper on Fri 13th Jan 2006 05:11 UTC in reply to "Wintel"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

looking at the companies that build severs like Dell,HP,etc which CPU is being used the most to build servers ?, Intel.
easy as that

Edited 2006-01-13 05:12

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Wintel
by chekr on Fri 13th Jan 2006 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Wintel"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

maybe you haven't seen the new products coming out running opterons from all of the above except Dell

oh and you conveniently left out the two biggest server manufacturers
IBM-Power
Sun-Sparc and AMD64

Reply Score: 1

WinAMD
by Devilotx on Thu 12th Jan 2006 21:38 UTC
Devilotx
Member since:
2005-07-06

indeed,

Good thing I've got this WinAMDx64 machine... hope someone makes a samba config that can work with this.

and on topic, I'd kill for a good AD integration document, that would make life so much better for me.

Reply Score: 0

RE: WinAMD
by mym6 on Sat 14th Jan 2006 14:53 UTC in reply to "WinAMD"
mym6 Member since:
2005-08-26

Just last week I got my RHEL4 box integrated with our new Active Directory setup. If you are otherwise familiar with Samba/Linux http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/domain-m... will be very helpful. Contact me if you have any questions, info should be in my profile.

Reply Score: 1

Useless
by Unbeliever on Thu 12th Jan 2006 22:03 UTC
Unbeliever
Member since:
2005-07-09

It's really useless and pointless to use the name WinTel anymore. There are other, newer OSs that run on Intel, including OS X.

It's not 1995 and things have changed since Win95.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Useless
by siride on Thu 12th Jan 2006 22:22 UTC in reply to "Useless"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

I don't think you get it. If the machine runs Linux or OS X, it isn't called Wintel, despite the fact that the processor may be Intel. It's only the standard PC running Windows (this is the key) with Intel Inside (R) that is called Wintel. These are, alas, the vast majority of PCs.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Useless
by Varg Vikernes on Fri 13th Jan 2006 03:01 UTC in reply to "Useless"
Varg Vikernes Member since:
2005-07-06

Macintel?

Reply Score: 2

Active directory
by Mathman on Thu 12th Jan 2006 23:25 UTC
Mathman
Member since:
2005-07-08

From what I understand, the "Samba 3 by example" book is an excellent resource for getting Linux integrated with an active directory setup, or even replacing your Windows active directory servers. Oh, and it's freely available on the internet, samba.org I believe.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Wintel
by Anonymous. on Fri 13th Jan 2006 12:53 UTC
Anonymous.
Member since:
2005-12-04

windows also runs on powerpc (xbox 360)... "WinTel" is just an obsolete MacTroll word.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone PM-8200/US/1.0) NetFront/3.1 MMP/2.0

Reply Score: 1

Kinda Lame
by NixerX on Fri 13th Jan 2006 14:32 UTC
NixerX
Member since:
2006-01-04

This config hardly useable in a production environment. For example, On my samba servers I can manage share permissions from a windows client as if they were on a windows server. Also by the magic of winbindd I dont need to add the windows usernames to the /etc/passwd.
-nX

Reply Score: 1

lame
by Guardian on Fri 13th Jan 2006 15:25 UTC
Guardian
Member since:
2006-01-02

Here is a snapshot of the smb.conf file that relates to the shares that we have created.

[root]
path = /root
writeable = yes
guest ok = yes

---------------------------------

after that i think that author need to drink a cup of poison ;) ))

Reply Score: 2

Funny how
by polaris20 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 16:10 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

90% of the discussion here is people whining about the use of "WinTel" and not the actual point of the article. Samba is fine and good, and it does work fine in a workgroup setting. But integrating into AD is certainly not straightforward.

I agree with an above statement; a start to finish article on integration into AD would be great.

Reply Score: 1

not very good...
by natefrogg on Sat 14th Jan 2006 19:09 UTC
natefrogg
Member since:
2005-08-16

i don't think this article is very great

i've seen tons of guides that deal with only a workgroup type of network, this is trivial to setup, most medium to large sized companies use active directory, setup for ad would've been much more informative imo

also, what's up with sharing /root with guest and write access turned on?

Reply Score: 1