The Simple Things in Life
John Moser
john.r.moser at gmail.com
Wed Jul 20 02:13:10 UTC 2016
On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 15:01 -0700, Markus Lankeit wrote:
> Adding my $0.02...
>
> If you pick "samba file server" during install, libnss-winbind
> libpam-winbind are not installed by default. It took me a long to
> time to track down why in 16.04 I can "join" an AD domain just fine,
> but domain users get "access denied" to samba file shares. Not sure
> the logic behind not installing relevant packages...
>
To be fair, configuring Samba is non-trivial, and I often think joining
a domain as a member rather than a domain controller is some incidental
feature that's a prerequisite for being a domain controller. Samba
doesn't seem to support being a domain member very well at all, to the
point that searching on errors and asking Google how to get a Samba
domain member to authenticate to a different domain controller (because
you joined on a RWDC network and now need to authenticate against a
RODC) brings up documentation on configuring Samba as a domain
controller.
I configure Samba all the time; I have no idea how it works, and when
it breaks I'm lost. To put this into perspective, I know how
*everything* works, and when it breaks I can project the entire
configuration and behavior and identify something I probably should
have seen before--something unfamiliar, which I haven't inspected, but
which I was able to assembly by simply throwing the state together in
my head and making myself aware that some problem exists somewhere. I
have NO IDEA why my Linux servers can authenticate to Active Directory;
I just know I did things to PAM and nsswitch.conf and repeatedly ran a
dozen forms of net join until, despite consistently throwing errors and
failing, the server magically started authenticating.
More basically, Samba can be a Samba file server without joining an AD
domain.
> Also, the whole network device naming scheme is just a fiasco...
> Before, I could have a simple template for all my systems... now
> every system requires a unique template that takes me to the HW
> level to figure out what it might be. And this is supposed to be
> more intuitive and/or predictable than "eth0"?
>
>
>
> Thx.
>
>
>
> -ml
>
>
>
> > On 7/19/2016 2:48 PM, John Moser wrote:
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 14:29 -0700, Jason Benjamin wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've
> > > been irritated by so many obvious shortcomings of Ubuntu this
> > > version (16.04). So many of the most obvious fixes are easily
> > > attributed to configuration files. I don't know if those who
> > > purchase the operating system directly from Canonical versus a
> > > download are having to deal with the same problems or are
> > > getting a supe> > > rior/better operating system.
> > > operating system.
> > > Some of my main qualms that I am unable to deal with are the
> > > theming. Even using alternative themes most of them won't
> > > even look right as supposed.
> > >
> > > > > > The
> > > HIBERNATION itself seems to work fine on other closely related
> > > distros (Elementary OS I tested). but Ubuntu has problems
> > > with it. AFAIK the GRUB_CMDLINE breaks this if anything, and
> > > alternatives such as TuxOnIce don't work either. My guess is
> > > that its Plymouth and there doesn't seem to be any clear
> > > pointers to a solution. After desktop session saving was
> > > deprecated (or removed because of transition from Gnome?),
> > > this seems like a serious and necessary *implementation* of
> > > desktop application saving.
> > >
> > > > > > I've
> > > seen a lot of these blogs that suggest installing extra
> > > programs and such after the installation. Here's mine:
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > You just listed a bunch of odd things about hiding the boot
> > process.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I've been repeatedly distressed and confused by this hidden
> > boot process. I've sat and waited at blank screens and splashes
> > that give no feedback, wondering if the kernel is hanging at
> > initializing a driver, trying to find network, or making
> > decisions about a disk. There is no standard flow which can be
> > disrupted with a new, non-error status message curtly explaining
> > that something is happening and all is well; there is a standard
> > flow in which the machine displays a blank, meaningless state
> > for a fixed amount of time, and deviation in that time by any
> > more than a few tenths of a second gives the immediate,
> > gut-wrenching feeling that the system has hanged during boot and
> > is terminally broken in some mysterious and completely-unknown
> > manner.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > What Ubuntu needs most is a simple, non-buried toggle option
> > to show the boot process--including displaying the bootloader,
> > displaying the kernel load messages, and listing which services
> > are loading and already-loaded during the graphical boot.
> > Ubuntu's best current feature is the Recovery boot mode, aside
> > from not having a setting to make this the standard boot mode
> > sans the recovery prompt. "Blindside the user with a confusing
> > and meaningless boot process and terror at a slight lag in boot
> > time because the system may be broken" is not a good policy for
> > boot times longer than 1 second.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Even Android displays a count of system assemblies AOT cached
> > during boots after update so as to convey to the user that
> > something is indeed happening.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
>
Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com
>
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20160719/4572224a/attachment.html>
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss
mailing list