Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Networking Windows IT

Windows Server Trusts Samba4 Active Directory 182

Posted by timothy
from the honey-it's-not-that-you-don't-trust-me dept.
Darren Ginter writes "A group of Samba v4 developers recently spent a week in Redmond to work with Microsoft on Active Directory interoperability(?!). The result? Windows Server will now join, trust and replicate a Samba-based Active Directory using Microsoft-native protocols. Although Samba v4 is still in the alpha stages, this is a huge step for open source. Or it could be a trap."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Server Trusts Samba4 Active Directory

Comments Filter:
  • Re:I look forward... (Score:5, Informative)

    by value_added (719364) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @03:11PM (#29705311)

    to being able to implement this at home and at work to word towards replacing Windows Server 2003.

    For home or small office use, this [snia.org] might be an interesting read. It's the slideshow from Kai Blin's Samba ARMed and Ready: Running an Active Directory DC on 2 Watts talk on an embedded Samba4 DC.

  • Re:Oh, great (Score:3, Informative)

    by aztracker1 (702135) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @06:20PM (#29706535) Homepage

    That was actually my first thought. The biggest reason I really don't think MS will submarine .Net/mono is because they haven't pushed back on Samba or WINE for this long. With this, I'm actually pretty comfortable with it.

    It is probably a result of the interoperability push from the EU, especially considering the Samba guys were the ones that didn't capitulate to MS when the EU anti-trust trials were proceeding.

  • by Cyberax (705495) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @06:58PM (#29706719)

    "Yes, Samba4 can emulate an AD server, if you don't mind having to maintain two sets of user and group accounts. Samba4 still requires either usermapping, or managing the linux users and groups separately. "

    Wrong! It's certainly possible to use trivial mapping for Unix and Windows groups and accounts. It was possible to do this since the early days of Samba.

    Samba4 even supports the full mapping of Windows ACLs which was the main missing feature in Samba3.

    "It simply lacks the nice seamless integration of AD, and does not fully implement GPOs inheritances, etc."

    Again, wrong. You can actually use Microsoft's tools to manage GPOs in Samba4.

    "If you read the article, you'd see they barely got it to the point where a Win2008 server would talk to it enough to join the domain (not just replicate the LDAP database). That's a far cry full full interoperability."

    Wrong. Win2008 server not just joined the Samba4 domain as a member. It has established a _trust_ _relationship_ with it. So members of Win2008 domain could now access resources in Samba4 domain with correct cross-authentication. And this is not a small task.

    Samba4 is about >this close to the full AD replacement.

    The main missing feature is printing, there's no support for it in Samba4. This task is being tackled in the 'Frankie' project which tries to use parts of Samba3 for printing.

  • Re:This is good news (Score:5, Informative)

    by cbhacking (979169) <been_out_cruisin ... @ y a h o o .com> on Saturday October 10, 2009 @07:51PM (#29707083) Homepage Journal

    Windows (in the modern sense) has nothing at all to do with DOS aside from including a 16-bit virtualization layer (in the 32-bit versions) and R/W support for its filesystem (not that you'll see many FAT16 volumes these days).

    Windows, or more correctly NT, was designed from the ground up to be 32-bit, multi-user, preemptive multitasking, support multiple APIs and/or ABIs (DOS, Win16, Win32, OS/2, and POSIX), be portable (the DOS-based Windows versions used assembly heavily, which made them fast and lightweight, but prone to bugs and impossible to port; NT is almost entirely C and has been ported to several completely different architectures), and be suitable for servers and workstations (not, initially, home computers). The lead designer of NT (and author of much of its kernel), Dave Cutler, used to be one of the leaders on VAX/VMS and other projects by DEC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler [wikipedia.org]

    Claiming that Windows was "morphed from DOS" indicates either a stunning lack of knowledge about the modern software world (the last Windows version in any way based on DOS was ME, which was quickly replaced with the NT-based 2000 and XP), or that you are simply a troll.

  • by RocketRabbit (830691) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:12PM (#29707245)

    Microsoft is fine with Open Source. Hell, they are actively supporting it. After all, Open Source is mainly a way to get geeks to do work for you for free.

    However, Microsoft is an avowed enemy of Free Software. Free Software is not the same thing as Open Source. This is something that most people don't realize, as your comment indicates.

  • WTF? How can you possibly justify your position?

    Lets just a quick "Lets get the facts straight campaign":

    A 2003 license is $429.99 US ex tax (Euro pricing, I am sure that the US is cheaper) and that includes 5 CALs. Datacentre runs well and truly above your $3,000 figure, try doubling it if you want Hyper-V.

    A 2008 CAL is about $30, but it's not just that you are probably going to want, it's sharepoint and everything else. So really, you just haven't done any research.

    Lets run with your understanding about using Linux to connect to Windows, it's wrong.

    If you aren't using their software, why would you have to pay for a Client Access License? I am sure you could make a donation to the Samba Foundation, and I am sure that they would appreciate it. Aside from that though, why would the protocols need a license? They have publicly posted the protocols, they got forced to by the EU as part of their anti-trust investigation. This was part of their settlement. They have also posted the protocols for Exchange and a number of other protocols; they had to.

    Really, this is the whole point of Jeremy Allison going tot he EU hearings and testifying and everything else, to MAKE Microsoft go through the interoperate with everyone else. Take a look here: http://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html [samba.org]

    Disclaimer: I am not an apologist, I am a Linux advocate but I still use a lot of MS products in my day to day business

  • by lbbros (900904) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:28PM (#29707375) Homepage
    I have to point out that the Samba developers worked with the SFLC (so, lawyers) before getting to work with the specifications they had received.
  • by Lennie (16154) on Sunday October 11, 2009 @06:23AM (#29709957)
    An other big misconception is, Free Software doesn't need to be free (as in beer). I think a lot of people don't understand that either.
  • Re:Really? (Score:3, Informative)

    by symbolset (646467) * on Sunday October 11, 2009 @10:51PM (#29715143) Journal

    Sendo did take them to court. The suit was settled in 2004 for money and Microsoft giving up their ownership stake. In 2005 Sendo finally went under and what's left was bought by Motorola [wikipedia.org].

    This is in no way related to Microsoft's outright buyout of SideKick and Danger, which at last report was a square deal for cash and going swimmingly except for the minor data loss issue, the defections and the total absence of morale since the Pink Slips incident.

    So apparently this whole SideKick/Danger thing had gotten completely out of hand even before [appleinsider.com] they lost everyone's data, and people aren't being shy about calling the whole thing dead [computerworld.com]. The first link even calls doom on Windows Mobile according to Gartner. That's a shame. I really liked WiMo except for the performance, the interface, the reliability, the paucity of third party apps, the retro hardware compatibility, the need for a stylus and the utter lack of any compelling features.

    Microsoft really needs to bust into the phone market and now it ain't gonna happen. They're not gaining share anywhere else and their stock is tracking the S&P for the last decade while Apple has grown from nobody to a $170B company. And now they've demonstrated their fickle partnership loyalties to every single player in the phone market and brilliantly demonstrated their inability to execute as their attempts at an own-brand phone erupt into flames. The complete loss of opportunity in the massive growth smartphone market really has to sting. Between this and the field of dreams that is Zune they're completely discredited in the CE space. I really wish I was a furniture salesman in Redmond today.

    I had never heard of Roz Ho before today. I think I'll send her flowers.

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten