Home > Internet > RHEL4 and Windows Integration Using Samba-3 RHEL4 and Windows Integration Using Samba-3 Submitted by Jane Walker 2006-01-12 Internet 25 Comments 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. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 25 Comments 2006-01-12 9:12 pm wylde342 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!” 2006-01-12 9:16 pm klynch What does Intel have anything to do with this? The “Wintel” name is overused and rarely has any purpose. 2006-01-12 9:24 pm siride 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. 2006-01-12 9:33 pm DrillSgt “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… 2006-01-12 10:51 pm 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. 2006-01-13 1:24 am markjensen 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. 2006-01-13 2:40 am joelito_pr 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 2006-01-13 9:51 am BryanFeeney 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. 2006-01-14 3:06 am 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. 2006-01-12 9:41 pm rcsteiner 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. 2006-01-13 11:56 am simo 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? 2006-01-13 2:57 pm BryanFeeney 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. 2006-01-13 5:11 am happycamper 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 2006-01-13 6:21 am chekr 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 2006-01-12 9:38 pm Devilotx 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. 2006-01-14 2:53 pm mym6 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. 2006-01-12 10:03 pm Unbeliever 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. 2006-01-12 10:22 pm siride 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. 2006-01-13 3:01 am Varg Vikernes Macintel? 2006-01-12 11:25 pm Mathman 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. 2006-01-13 12:53 pm Anonymous. 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 2006-01-13 2:32 pm NixerX 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 2006-01-13 3:25 pm Guardian 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 )) 2006-01-13 4:10 pm polaris20 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. 2006-01-14 7:09 pm natefrogg 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?