On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 14:19 -0800, Pete Rowley wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
>Is anyone following the Active Directory services in samba4
>enough to comment on how it would compare to FDS for network
It isn't really a case of versus. There is a high likelyhood that in
any large deployment you will want FDS as the backend server to SAMBA.
Indeed, the SAMBA team appear to realise that writing it all themselves
is not the best idea when there are perfectly good existing, scalable
open source solutions available for the components they need. The
standalone LDAP services for instance will likely not be intended to
replace an existing LDAP deployment or indeed to displace the need for
one - rather I suspect the internal LDAP functionality is intended for
cases where a directory server is overkill and the additional services
of directory servers are unrequired, and what is really required is an
even lighter LDAP sufficient to get the job done in these cases. Ditto
So to sum up, if you have a need now that is best filled by a fully
fledged directory server, you should probably not expect that to change
when SAMBA4 releases.
This all of course, IMO.
It is the only way they can really provide a complete turnkey type
solution as an AD alternative. The samba list is replete of examples of
people trying to obtain a samba integration with LDAP and for these
people, an integrated - even if simplistic adaptation of LDAP and
kerberos server should be more accommodating.