To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Where is Linux's answer to AD? There is none. Redhat has basically admitted that themselves.
Well I'm no active directory expert, but what does it do? Authentication? Profiles? DNS? Workstation settings? There are plenty of Linux technologies that can acomplish all of the above. Now sure there isn't a Linux equivalent for managing Windows workstations just yet, nothing free anyway (that I know of), but Samba combined with openldap has at least some of the functionality.
What right do the Samba developers have to call something a "bug" if they don't have the actual documentation of the SMB protocol on hand?
They've completely reverse engineered it. By my reckoning that gives them at least some credibility.
It does all of that, and more, in a single, central, unified manner. Sure, you can mish-mash a bunch of Linux technologies together to create a simulated (but limited) effect, but you don't have the core benefit of AD -- a central area where you can configure it all.
As for Samba, yeah, they've reverse-engineered it, and props to them for that -- but until they get official documentation from Microsoft which describes every aspect of the protocol and its supporting libraries, I don't think they have any real right to call something a "major bug". ;-)






Member since:
2005-07-06
#1. Proof?
#2. Proof? MSDNS is in use in many, many networks, simply because many, many networks make use of AD. Where is Linux's answer to AD? There is none. Redhat has basically admitted that themselves.
What right do the Samba developers have to call something a "bug" if they don't have the actual documentation of the SMB protocol on hand?