news at pointerstop.ca
Wed May 7 13:30:37 UTC 2008
Patton Echols wrote:
> On 05/06/2008 10:38 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
>> I would advise fleeing (screaming) from domain control. Using a samba
>> server for centralized file storage should be enough - you won't need
>> peer-to-peer access in XP any longer. Setting the samba machine to be
>> the authority on the network should be sufficient.
>> Every winboxen in the same workgroup, the samba machine in the same
>> workgroup, and the samba machine as the authority has worked well for
>> me in small, mixed networks with win98, win2k, XP and OSX machines all
>> playing well together.
> Ok, what do you mean by samba as the authority, if not a domain
> controller. Is there some middle ground between the samba server being
> another peer, and being a domain controller?
I was having some trouble with that concept too :-) It seems to me that
once you have a Samba "server", you have a domain controller. In fact, you
have to explicitly configure it _not_ to be a domain controller. You can
have a Samba server that just serves up shares, and isn't a DC, but I don't
know how it can be an "authority" if that's the case.
More information about the ubuntu-users