OSNews

Actually, it works just fine out of the box on openSuSE 10.1.

So, yeah... Rock on Novell.

I don't get it...
Microsoft released a more secure default.

You are free to change it, that is what the above link is about. You are even free to create custom disk images with a different setting. So who was frozen out and what standards were forced?

Microsoft does plenty of REAL things that cause REAL grief for both users and admins, we don't need to invent our own to add to it.

I like how MS just changes things with no regard for how it will affect users.

Yeah. They only released NTLMv2 with NT 4.0 SP4.

"... starting with Windows 2000 SRP1, including Windows 2000 SP3, all versions of Windows XP and all versions of Windows Server 2003, NTLMv2 Session Security is always negotiated."

Whats up with Samba being 6 years behind?

Whats up with Samba being 6 years behind?

Nobody would give them the specs?

Yeah. They only released NTLMv2 with NT 4.0 SP4.

And at Samba they released it with 3.0.0

Whats up with Samba being 6 years behind?

Well, you could point Samba developers to MS documentation specs so they won't need to guess what is what.

The problem is that there are no usable specs. So if you're bound to guess how everything works, you're bound to be behind. Situation which could easily change if MS woulb release the specs.

p.s. Someone should mod entire article as bogus

Edited 2006-12-15 04:34

Or they could just keep up the great work, allowing places like mine to easily make files and home directories readily available to both Windows and Unix clients. All open source and free of charge I might add.

Samba does Windows shares it's got to follow Windows standards, how could it develop something different and new and still do that.

Perhaps this is an area where the EU forcing MS to release documentation will help?

Mathman I agree totally

Wow, you're right, there can only be these two choices. Thank you NotParker for presenting us with these honest, non-biased choices!

*roll eyes*

How can you say that Samba is copying Microsoft? Does Microsoft publish SMB servers that run on Unix/BSD/Linux? You should know, I'm sure you have Microsoft's software catalogue on your bedside table...

I've got news for you: presenting the issue in such a simplistic manner will not fool anyone on this site. Better try something more, oh, I don't know, subtle...

Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?

Or would it have been better for the Samba team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than Microsofts.

I guess the answer is that they couldn't come up with a better product so they kept copying.

NotParker,your logic is a bit lacking.
Samba is devoted to enable interoperability with Windows.
If they wrote something better than SMB then who would write the other side on Windows? Microsoft?! Bhabhabhabhahahahaahha ....

As for Linux itself, we already have a number of filesharing solutions and much more. NFS comes to mind.
And it's been around longer than Windows (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

lets not forget that microsoft did not even invent SMB, so they started playing copying, i guess they couldnt invent something better?

There is an article on Slashdot lastnight asking why does everyone hate microsoft. You should read the comments that answer that question.


http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/06/12/13/019241.shtml

If you ever read up on SMB you'll see that a lot of the codes are reserved for Xenix. Microsft used to own Xenix which was the Unix on x86 before Linux existed (see, still copying Microsoft).

...after Microsoft had copied Unix. :-)

But you haven't answered my question.

I don't answer loaded questions based on a logically fasle premise. Since your original premise (i.e. that developing Samba is copying MS) is false, then the question itself is nonsensical. Others have adroitly pointed this out already.

Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?

Writing a SMB server for *nix is *not* copying Windows. First of all, as others have mentioned, SMB was invented by IBM. Second, since Windows doesn't have a free SMB server for *nix, then Samba can hardly be said to copy them.

Copying in itself is not a bad thing, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't be doing it all the time! The basic principle of the Windows interface was copied from Mac OS, which itself as copied from the Xerox PARC's experimental GUI desktops.

So, tell me NotParker, is it good for MS to copy other people's ideas, or should they have spent their time developing something better?

"""Or would it have been better for the Samba team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than Microsofts."""

You are intentionally missing the point of Samba.

No other protocol would achieve interoperability with out-of-the-box Windows machines.

We have file sharing protocols which are superior for the situation where Unix-like OSes need to talk to other Unix-like OSes. (CIFS + the extensions is one of them, I suppose.)

But for the case of Unix<->Windows interoperability, only Windows' native protocol would be appropriate.

One can hardly expect random XP boxes to have Windows SFU installed.

Why do you pretend to miss that obvious point?

"""Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?"""

I should say that 15 years of dedication to interop between disparate OSes is a noble pursuit. If you disagree, what in the nine worlds are you doing here at OSNews?

In honor of the death threat being modded to +2:


Does Microsoft publish SMB servers that run on Unix/BSD/Linux?

If you ever read up on SMB you'll see that a lot of the codes are reserved for Xenix. Microsft used to own Xenix which was the Unix on x86 before Linux existed (see, still copying Microsoft).

But you haven't answered my question.

Is copying Microsft by cloning Microsoft File and Print Sharing and Windows Domain Controllers a good way to spend 15 years of your life?

Or would it have been better for the Samba team to come up with a new file sharing protocol even better than Microsofts.

I guess the answer is that they couldn't come up with a better product so they kept copying.

Xenix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
NetBios/SMB/Xenix: http://www.protocols.com/pbook/ibm.htm

Edited 2006-12-15 16:06

I'm sure you have Microsoft's software catalogue on your bedside table...

I don't think you'll find MS have a software catalogue.

Anyone who has a complete list of all the software they have ever released is violating their "IP" and giving away trade secrets.

Besides which, Sears & Roebuck are probably violating an MS patent on a "method of storing information on glossy paper in an ordered manner".

"""How can you say that Samba is copying Microsoft?"""

Careful, there. He's trying to maneuver you into arguing that copying good ideas from competitors is a bad thing. How silly. Excluding ideas because they originate with the competition is as limiting as if they had a patent on it, except they don't have to go to the trouble of getting the patent.

However, in this case, NotParker's original statement:

"""
So ... I say "Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.
"""

is, very literally, total nonsense. Unless one is willing to argue that interoperability between OSes is a bad and useless thing (thereby painting Samba as a bad and useless project) it makes no sense whatsoever to say such a thing. I don't think that Bruce is willing to argue that interoperability is bad and useless. (Though he may surprise me.)

His statement could be made against any one of a number of other projects and there would be room for doubt.

But in this particular case, the only possible reason to make such a statement is to be controversial for the sake of being controversial.

Note how I deftly skirted the 'T' word. ;-)

-Steve

Edited 2006-12-15 13:49

I don't think that Bruce is willing to argue that interoperability is bad and useless. (Though he may surprise me.)

Bruce? Who's Bruce?

I'm sure you have Microsoft's software catalogue on your bedside table...

Yeh, probably next to a big bottle of lotion and a box of tissues.

"""Yeh, probably next to a big bottle of lotion and a box of tissues."""

What's wrong with that?^W^W^W^W I mean, now, now. No need to stoop to that level. ;-)

Seriously, though. Let's stick to the high ground.

Well, I've usually saved such good natured posts for my good buddy LIP, but jesus christ I just need to come out and say it here. You Not Parker my friend are a grade A moron. I see you go on and on and on with this nonsense. I mean, what is this 5th grade? Wait man, I have a better one: how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife? Or how about this little gem: retard says what.

So yeah, just put a check by your reply:
__ Not Parker needs to grow up.
__ Not Parker needs to go away.
__ Not Parker needs to be sterilized so as not to damage the gene pool any more than his parents already have.

Anyhow, contrary to what some of the more mentally challenged os news readers might tell you, Microsoft did not invent the concept of sharing a remote filesystem over a network. But feel free to live with that little delusion if it suits your fancy. But heck, even if Linux or whatever was a complete replica of Microsoft's operating system I'd have no problem with that. A. Linux distributions tend to be free. B. Linux distributions tend to be open source.

And honestly, I fail to see how appreciating all the hard work the samba team has put in to make my life easier makes me some sort of cultist. Yes, samba is free software. No, that does not mean that by simply using it I'm forced to subscribe to some hardline free software stance a la RMS. I mean, you might as well tell me I'm some sort of fanatic for being happy that the casino I tend to hang out in just sent me $50 bucks, some coupons for free food and drinks, and a free hotel room.

In conclusion, it's a good thing I can't kill people with my thoughts.

5+ (shame I can mod you for one only)

God,... last weeks I really hope there will be article about OS trolls on OSNews.

Not that it would do any good. At least comments like this one would be on topic. It was bad with previous troll, but NotParker goes beyond annoyance. Beside the fact that OSNews ratings improved on constant bitchin' something should be done in this side too.

And the most annoying thing is they always demand answering their questions without answering single question of yours like today (fortunately as soon as comment is modded down it prevents Reply, otherwise I would be feeding the troll out of sheer anger. Thanks, OSNews for implementing this specific mode).

You get modded down because you're an idiot.

Wise up.

Edited 2006-12-15 12:49

I comment with something straightforward and factual.

Actually, you ask a question based on a false premise, i.e. Samba is copying Microsoft. (It's not.)

But that's not the reason you get modded down. The reason you get modded down (in these posts at least) is that you call a whole bunch of people you have never met "cultists", just because they disagree with you.

Oh, and "death threats"? Get real.

If you really fear for your life, perhaps you can write to the OSNews editors again and warn them of the situation...hopefully you'll have better luck than next time! :-)

This is the way it works.

Let disect how it works

1) I comment with something straightforward and factual.

And you get modded 5.

2) Then the cult chimes in with a bunch of attacks on Microsoft that prove how stupid they are.

Actually the first attack was made by you on my answer. And it was made on Samba.

3) I correct them

No, you were corrected. SMB is IBM protocol. NTLMv2 was in samba 3.0.0

4) I get attacked and modded down.

No, you got attacked after you attacked with non-sense

5) I make a humorous snotty reply that enrages the cult because they have no sense of humor

Obviously you're the only person here who understands your humor.

6) I get modded down and attacked and threatened with death (new). Or the pervert archiesteel tells me to "Suck It". (old)


Its kind of pathetic that this: "Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft." gets modded to -4 and will probably make -5, while this: "In conclusion, it's a good thing I can't kill people with my thoughts." only rates a 0.

First one was not humor, only false claim, was disputed soon as stated that in basis MS is the one copying it from IBM for 15 or so years.
Second one, Maybe, but since you are in question... I can't help but agree.

Humor = -4

Humor was where in that sentence?

Death threats = 0

Death threat was where? All I see is a wishful thinking and thinking is not prohibited.


The cult reaches a new low!

Who/what is this cult? Do I need to enlist? Or am I already enlisted?

Samba is essential for Windows nix* interoperability. Most think that is a good thing, developing systems that allow interoperability isn’t simply copying MS, its about making systems that work, which people can use to do their work, entertain themselves etc.

Maybe everything that happens in the computing world is always centred around MS (or even FOSS). I once read the slogan “theory is when you have ideas, ideology is when ideas have you” I believe this is true. It applies to some Linux Zealots and definitely applies to a certain troll. I think when said troll gets modded down to invisible maybe he should be ignored. Let try not to feed the troll.

Damn just fed it

Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.

Or maybe Microsoft could publish their own SMB software for Linux?

What, you don't want Linux and Microsoft computers to talk to each other? You'll afraid that Linux computer will morally corrupt other PCs away from the true Church of Microsoft if they share files and printers with them?

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you say things like that? If that isn't trolling, then I don't know what is.

What, you don't want Linux and Microsoft computers to talk to each other? You'll afraid that Linux computer will morally corrupt other PCs away from the true Church of Microsoft if they share files and printers with them?

Indeed. People who want to force stuff on others should learn that if foo has any value then you won't need to force it on them.

Edited 2006-12-15 14:30

Maybe Samba developers could spend their time on developing something new instead of just copying Microsoft.

What GrotParker misses here is the history of SMB

SMB (Server Message Blocks) is a protocol developed by IBM and made open as a protocol by them. MS took this and started on its EEE program (Embrace, Extend and Extinguish). It changed its use of the protocol to make it incompatible with other OS's using SMB. It was as response to this that SAMBA was started.

MS renamed its use of SMB to CIFS (Common Internet File System) which like the "Holy Roman Empire' which was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire, is neither Common, Internet related nor a File System.

MS did for a while join in a common forum with IBM and other companies and software providers including SAMBA on CIFS but I gather that this did not survive long as MS was clearly not interested in a common standard specification.

MS went on to incorporate Kerberos (developed by MIT) and LDAP (developed at U. Penn) and to then make their use of these open protocols incompatible with the standard. They called this grab and conversion of open standards into closed, secret and proprietary protocols Active Directory.

So we see that the the only way for non-MS OS's, be they FOSS or proprietary, to communicate MS systems is for very brilliant people like Tridge to reverse engineer the perversions and deliberate incompatibilities introduced into open standards by Microsoft

Edited 2006-12-15 13:39

So we see that the the only way for non-MS OS's, be they FOSS or proprietary, to communicate MS systems is for very brilliant people like Tridge to reverse engineer the perversions and deliberate incompatibilities introduced into open standards by Microsoft.

Untrue. NFS was/is an option as was/is building an installable client like Novell and others have.

"Whats up with Samba being 6 years behind?"

It's not, it can do NTLMv2 just fine. Why this isn't mentioned in the article is anyone's guess.

I'm not sure that I remember correctly the details, but with passwords under eight characters LM & NTLM are both easily crackable because of a weakness in the protocols. Also, LM has others weaknesses related to the fact that it's case insensitive by nature (algorithm is weaker).

So, the use of NTLMv2 by default is a good thing and it's not hard to configure this in Samba.

Not quite. LM, in addition to being case insensitive, splits passwords into two 7 character passwords making them very easy to crack. I don't know about what weaknesses are in NTLM. I'm sure there are some though or there wouldn't be NTLMv2

Edited 2006-12-16 05:06

And you choose to not acknowledge that Microsoft does actually make non-mainstream products geared towards getting Windows and Unix to interoperate. They even have a lot of custom apps out there that many corporations use for this sole purpose.

"The best way to avoid this situation is to run a 100% *NIX shop and tell MS to take a hike."

The best way to run your business into the ground is with an all or nothing attitude like that.

Mr. "c" wanted a little PageRank boost for hist blog so he submitted his Samba tutorial to OSNews

Start > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Local Security Policy

That will take you to secpol.msc in Windows XP Professional, IRRC this doesn't work in XP Home so I assume that Vista Home Crippleware edition won't have that feature either.

Oh and I just changed my security policy to use NTLMv2 on XP and it works fine with my Debian file server.

And SVJN wrote a similar article, but he recommended to update the SAMBA servers

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4434907782.html

And SVJN wrote a similar article, but he recommended to update the SAMBA servers

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4434907782.html

I have to say, this is a much better article than the one this story links to, and the solution it gives is much more secure.

The summary should be udpated accordingly.

Ouch! That does seem like a coherent path to look that stuff in. I stand corrected then and eat my own words.

Yay for Windows! ^_-

of course they do, they needed a way to expose all your files to the internet, in their usual insecure fashion.

I'd like to expose all my files to the Internet. How can I do that... seriously.

I agree. It's not that he doesn't have something to say that's worth hearing, but it can't help itself from being condesending and snide most of the time. That's including notparker's close buddy tomcat. And it's annoying how they both pipe up with rude behavior and then get angry or shocked when they get modded down for it. It reminds me of a coworker I have to put up with. He always is making fun of people, putting people down, but when you do it to him, boy have you just committed an offense. He mouths off, someone says something back, then he's whining at the top of his lungs how he's been wronged and what the hell is up with who ever just told him off. But when you tell him what happened is the same as what he's doing, then it's you have no sense of humor, because he's just doing it for fun (except noone else but him thinks it's fun).

Notparker: it's not a matter of what you have to say, it's how you say it. You complain about other's but you can't see your own face in the mirror. You complain about zealots, but buddy, you are what you complain about, but only worse. Anytime you say the word zealot you make yourself look completely hypocritical.

Well, me, I just took it down to his level unfortunately. I sincerely apologize.

Anyhow, I'd just like to hit you with a good old fashion hear hear.

If you disagree with NotParker, meet him/her/it with factual points instead of zealotry.

If you consider him/her/it a troll, just don't feed.

If you disagree with NotParker, meet him/her/it with factual points instead of zealotry.

I've tried, oh believe me, how I have tried! When faced with an argument he cannot counter, NotParker either ignores it or switches to ad hominem attacks.

If you consider him/her/it a troll, just don't feed.

That's good advice. It'll be my New Year resolution. :-)

Note: do a Google search on "NotParker" and "Troll"...he's been busy! :-)

"And I get modded down."

Yes, you do.

"""
__ Yes, copying Microsft is the best thing FOSS does

__ No, copying Microsft is bad and not to be encouraged. Samba is something to be ashamed of.
"""

The two multiple choice answers are orthogonal to each other.

However, I would say that copying and synthesizing extant ideas into new combinations, like the Unix extensions to CIFS, is one of the most important activities of most any successful organization. One does not create in a vacuum. And despite what some would like us to believe, even the best of us are doing well to build 1% of innovation on top of 99% copying and synthesis.

You are doing your best to find people who will argue that "we don't copy". Clever. But I'm not biting.

BTW, that last sentence was *not* a threat of physical violence. ;-)

Anyway, I'm curious. Do you think that Windows SFU "copying"?

Whether it is or not, I applaud them for making it available.

However, I would say that copying and synthesizing extant ideas into new combinations, like the Unix extensions to CIFS, is one of the most important activities of most any successful organization. One does not create in a vacuum. And despite what some would like us to believe, even the best of us are doing well to build 1% of innovation on top of 99% copying and synthesis.

Thats not what I hear on this site any time mentions the word Microsoft and Innovation. Usually its a non-stop series of attacks.

Anyway, I'm curious. Do you think that Windows SFU "copying"?

Its more like returning to their roots (Xenix).

Anyway, I'm curious. Do you think that Windows SFU "copying"?

Whether it is or not, I applaud them for making it available.

Considering Windows Services for Unix uses a modified OpenBSD 3 install to provide all those services, yes it is copying. And more power to them.

You get modded down because you framed your questions like an idiot. It sucks that samba does not always work with windows and active directory, But it is Microsoft's choice if they want to release their specs on the design, If someone wants to sped there time making samba work with windows go for it.. People complain when ever Microsoft tries to make there products better, In nt4 there pdc system sucked, So they took what they liked from ldap and created a new system, they got bitched at because ohh it was close to what novel did, Or that it was not open enough for others. they needed allot of custom code and wanted it work better then they could with ldap, but people bitch that they change stuff. its funny. But that's what you get when you don't try to make everything like Linux.

And you wonder why you get modded down.

Again, your question is stupid, worthless, and based on a completely false premise. NFS works just fine thank you very much.

Samba is designed to allow Windows/*ix to interoperate. It's not copying MS so Linux can share files.

Stop being such a self righteous idiot - you're argument, no, your entire opinion is set up on a false premise. Get over yourself. Check out samba on wikipedia or something and learn about it's purpose, it's history, it's function - when you can speak on it with some authority, come back and try to have an intelligent conversation.

Arguments on false pretenses are useless before they're even heard.

Not to mention, how could you try to force someone to decide between "FOSS copying MS is the best thing they do" and "FOSS should be ashamed of copying microsoft"

Yeah. Except when multiple platforms communicate with each other it's A GOOD THING. Linux has it's own protocols, this is true. But most of the world, to my dismay, using MS crap - Linux needs something to help it play nice. Therefore, we have Samba. Maybe it doesn't seem like the coolest, sexiest thing in the FOSS world, but I'm damn glad I have it.

Stop being such a self righteous idiot - you're argument, no, your entire opinion is set up on a false premise. Get over yourself. Check out samba on wikipedia or something and learn about it's purpose, it's history, it's function - when you can speak on it with some authority, come back and try to have an intelligent conversation.

I did. Years ago.

The article on the Samba site says: "The eventual goal, of course, it to completely mimic a Windows NT Domain Controller."

Maybe you should look up mimic in a dictionary.

And did they need to do this to mount Unix files on a PC?

They are doing this for those who would rather have a *nix server acting as their domain controller for Windows client.

Choice is a good thing. You should be happy that the Samba team has made software that allows *nix servers to share files, printers, etc. with Windows clients, and similarly for Linux clients to access to Windows servers, without having to add special software to the Windows machines? Aren't you in favor of interoperability?

Was it Free, or even free? Does the company still exist? Was there any guarantee it would stay in business, continue updating, producing?

Was there a chance MS could just buy the author/company out and kill the product?

Do you know how well the program worked? Was it efficient? Did it support NFS completely? How well did it share?

And are you trying to say...what? He just set out to reproduce MS because....he thought it was cool?

FOSS projects that aren't NEEDED or don't make life EASIER tend to die. Samba has a great community and is a great project - and I don't see any signs of it waning. People must love it for some reason (i'd list it among the top 10 foss projects). Oh, and really, I don't think it's because Linux doesn't 'have anything of its own'.

Maybe not all FOSS users/developers even LIKE Stallman most of the time?

It's ok though. You're obviously a HUGE fan of stereotype and generalization. Everybody here knows and understands that.

Why do you seem to feel FOSS should be undermined/destroyed?

You see, Stallman is right on some things and wrong on others. *gasp* He's HUMAN!*gasp*

Proprietary software works fine about as often as capitalism works. When you have an open market with real competition, things can work well. However, monopolies stifle innovation, destroy choice, and generally drag everything down with them.

I don't hate proprietary software. I just don't trust companies to do anything more than make as many bucks as possible.

"""
"The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies--such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they will all finish late.
Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a fist fight. "

-- Richard Stallman
"""

Nice quote. You know, I actually agree with this. You probably want to latch onto that word "moral", but I would remove it as I don't think it really changes the meaning.

Proprietary software is a trade off. Whatever the runners are fighting over is obviously important to them, and perhaps rightly so.

But it definitely interferes with the goal of finishing the race.

Similarly, proprietary code, all around, robs you of the opportunity to benefit from "their" code, and prohibits "them" from benefiting from yours. From that standpoint, it is a less effective strategy.

Oh, runner number one may get even with runner number two for what he did with runner number one's wife, but that has little value to anyone but them.

The rest of us are more concerned with the results of the race.

Far be it from me to defend Stallman on his more extreme positions, but this does not seem to be one of them.

Edited 2006-12-15 17:21

"""You are not seriously suggesting there is no infighting among the FOSS community? """

There is too much infighting, and it interferes with the true competition (Running).

Fortunately, like at an unpleasant sports event, most of it is between the fans and not the competitors.

As long as the code is shared, and inappropriate NIH feelings can be avoided, the race proceeds.

You could probably make some good points on the NIH front, but it might work against your points about our proclivity for "copying".

See above. There *is* too much infighting. *Most* (but not all) of it takes place at sites like this between people who are not OSS developers. (That's just my opinion, BTW.)

There is no contradiction in that.

Fortunately, it does not have much effect on the race. With respect to Stallman's metaphor from your quote, fighting would correspond to closing the code... making it unavailable to competitors. This rarely happens. (And the licensing makes that all the more difficult.)

Don't confuse Stallman's metaphorical use of conflict with the real thing. (Verbal conflict, that is.) Both are counterproductive. But closing code is more damaging than yelling epiphets.

Which is not to say that closed code is immoral. Just a tradeoff.

Edited 2006-12-15 17:58

You missed the part where we discovered that the tutorial is in error and unnecessary. Samba has supported NTLMv2 authentication since 3.0.0, released in 2003, I believe.

I suppose there may be a distro out there shipping with a misconfigured Samba, or perhaps the author made the mistake.

And yes, you are correct. MS did the right thing to make NTLMv2 the default, and reverting that would be suboptimal.

Edited 2006-12-15 16:28

I'm sure this will be lost in the flames, but isn't this tutorial the absolute wrong way to go about the authentication issue? Microsoft (in this case) got it right by removing NTLM and LM authentication since it's really, unsecure. Re-enabling it to work with an old version of Samba seems like a bad idea.

Yes. I did say NTLMv2 is a lot more secure.

That was taken as an invitation to bash Microsoft for making changes without telling people (7 years ago).