To add to this a bit. Under the roadmap for samba-4 is full ad replacement. So we have a lot to look forward to until M$ decides to break it ;)
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 10:50 -0500, Robert Larson wrote: > Hello Rene, > > I have actually set this up as an NT domain, as close to ADS as I could > possibly get. The implementation was a little tricky, but it involves > (heimdal)kerberos, sasl, openldap, pam, djbdns, dhcp, and samba. A web > document I had found helped me significantly when I approached technical > issues: > http://www.opentechnet.com/auth-howto/ > > Along the lines of replacing ADS, I think this is as close as you may get. > The thing that sets Microsoft's ADS apart is that they use a form of Remote > Procedure Calls that implements a lot of the leg work. This makes microsoft > incompatible against samba. > > In AD mode, a Microsoft computer won't authenticate against a linux host > (though it would as a PDC in NT mode) since it would be trying to communicate > in misc forms of RPC talk. On the flip side, it should be possible to > authenticate samba against ADS. Here is a tool that allows for flexibilty > with authentication under windows: > http://pgina.xpasystems.com/info/ > > As far as drawbacks, that's it. I haven't seen anything wrong with doing it > NT style, and with all of the added bells and whistles. > > I don't know the specifics, but the SMB-TNG is a lot more bleeding edge > technology when it comes to samba in an enterprise environment. It may > provide you with a solution closer to what you are looking for: > http://www.samba-tng.org > > I had a lot of fun setting this up! ;) > > Regards, > > Robert > > > On Monday 25 April 2005 04:25 am, Rene Zbinden wrote: > > Has anyone experience using samba as PDC and BDC with OpenLDAP as backend? > > Is it possible to totally go away from Windows Active Directories Servers > > to the above solution? What are the Drawbacks? > > -- > > cheers, > > rene > -- [email protected] mailing list
