[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Win2003 server/SMB -- that stupid BS won't shutup ;-)



On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 09:12, Robert Citek wrote:
> Apparently so.  I tried connecting via smbclient on an FC1 machine 
> (samba-client-3.0.7-2.FC1) and it connects just fine.

All Samba 3.x version (sans maybe the original 3.0.0, maybe 3.0.1 too?)
should work.  Again, I think it was Samba 2.2.8 or 2.2.9 where it was
fixed for the 2.2 series.  Remember, updates to Samba 2.2 continued
concurrently with Samba 3.0's release until just very recently.

> Will working on upgrading the other machines in a bit.

Again, don't forget "Fedora Legacy," especially since Red Hat Linux 9
(what I call CL3.1) is still being supported.  The Samba 2.2.12 "Legacy"
package updates are out there -- specifically so you can still use your
existing smb.conf without change (unlike if you upgrade to Samba 3). 
That's one thing I love about Debian, Fedora and a few, select projects
-- they maintain very discrete release models, tagging, etc... and don't
merely adopt the latest package.  There is a very sound reason why Red
Hat switched the model before the actual name change to Fedora (that was
just an additional consideration made later).**

> Thanks for the info Brian.  Owe you one next time you're in town.

No, you don't owe me at all.  We are _all_ here to help one another. 
There is a reason I don't list my certs, resume, etc... in my signature,
because we _all_ have an equal opportunity to help one another.  I am a
firm believer that one _earns_ trust of one's knowledge over _time_, and
I'm willing to take years in technically sound posts of knowledge to
earn that trust.

All I ask is that people engage me on technical details, and don't
merely dismiss my knowledge as FUD.  If you ask specific questions, I
will answer.  I can't always think of all the details I should cover. 
In fact, it's a catch-22 -- people regularly accuse me of being
overly-verbose, and offering too much detail -- especially if a concept
I cover is more "newbie" which only offends the more "veteran/
experienced" reader (even if the answer wasn't directed towards them).

-- Bryan

**NOTE:  In a nutshell, it boils down to the fact that Red Hat got sick
of supporting 6-7 revisions over only 2-3 years, because companies kept
standardizing on ".0" or ".1" revisions.  By going to the Current-Legacy
arrangement, Red Hat can support 2 "Current" reviusion as well as 2
"Legacy" _versions_ (the last .2 or .3 revision) up to 5 years back. 
Not surprisingly, the two current "Legacy" versions of ".2" or ".3"
revision, are Red Hat Linux 7.3 and Fedora Core 1 -- which match updates
for Red Hat Advanced Server / Enterprise Linux (RHAS/RHEL) 2.1 and Red
Hat Enterprise Server (RHEL) 3, respectively.

Hence why I call Red Hat Linux 7.3 as "CL2.3" and Fedora Core 1 as
"CL3.2".  It also explains why support for Red Hat Linux 8 (CL3.0) has
been dropped from "Legacy," even though it is newer than Red Hat Linux
7.3.  And I hope Red Hat switches back to the revisioning with Fedora
Core 5.0 -- because the next version, Fedora Core 5.1, will be the
foundation for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.  Just like the current Fedora
Core 3 (CL4.1) is the foundation for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.

Call "Fedora Legacy" something like "Red Hat Legacy" in your mind if you
wish -- it's really all one big USPTO-effect change (the cause being due
to Sun and other companies distributing modified Red Hat(R) Linux, and
not so much because of Cheapbytes and others -- even Red Hat said
Cheapbytes and mere "copy distributors" could use the trademark before
the Fedora name change ;-).  Red Hat supports it, and the updates are
even signed with their key (as are all "Official" Fedora repositories).


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith@ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.




-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.