Well, Samba 3 and Samba 4 aren't much different. The protocol in
Samba 4 is the same as Samba 3.
Samba 4 introduces the DC option, but not all distros include it.
E.g., Red Hat has gone the IPA route for AD Forest Trusts, instead of
allowing a Samba Server to be a DC in a native AD Forest.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:17 AM, G. Matthew Rice <m...@starnix.com> wrote:
> +1 for these changes...samba 3 should definitely go.
> I know there are a lot of samba3 installs still out there....but there
> shouldn't be. :)
> On Sep 17, 2016 2:17 PM, "Fabian Thorns" <ftho...@lpi.org> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> taking a look at
>> You will notice that it's time to review the current LPIC-300 objectives
>> to ensure they are still up to date. Therefore I'd like you all to share
>> your thoughts about our current objectives with the list, including wishes
>> what should be changed in the next update. We have however to obey that it
>> will be "minor update", so we can't fundamentally turn the while exam
>> Some things we should discuss from my point of view would be:
>> * Relevance of NT4 domains vs. AD domains
>> * Same for NBNS vs. DNS
>> * Shift from Samba 3 to Samba 4 (which shouldn't cause too much trouble,
>> However, I don't want to limit the discussion on these points. Just go
>> ahead and point out what you think. As usual, I will comment when necessary
>> and condense all the comments into a draft for potential updated objectives
>> which we will then review altogether again.
>> Looking forward to an interesting discussion,
>> lpi-examdev mailing list
> lpi-examdev mailing list
Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me
lpi-examdev mailing list