On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Adam Tauno Williams
<[email protected]> wrote:
Now I realize I'll get tarred-n-feather for this, but...
> > My IT department has implemented a samba PDC and now we are
> > for it. Can anyone help me out with some good justifications for
> > it this way vs the Microsoft way? Have a meeting about it in a
> > while...
> > We wanted to do it because Linux is more secure and more stable.
> > there may be other good reasons and it would be good to know
> > maybe it would be better to go with the Microsoft solutions?
> This is almost a troll question. what is better, beer or whine ...
* samba is open source = support for any version of will will continue
> as long as _you_ resp. your company are willing to support it
Or as long as clients will continue to operate effectively in a NT4
domain; a window with is rapidly closing, IMO.
> * beware that samba PDC == winnt PDC, no ADS PDC yet
Yep - which is why I think your bosses are correct. Deploying a *new*
NT4 domain in 2008 is just nuts. When most clients are XP or Vista and
many applications have integration with AD.
Could you elaborate on difference in AD vs NT4? What specific
application that you are talking about have AD and not nt4
But as far as samba goes:
2. Free upgrades
3. Easy to maintain
4. Lower maintenance costs because its deployed on linux (no $
upgrades to os required ?)
5. Higher security (If that is a case)
6. Integration of other tools to samba pdc/linux (webmail, antispam,
loadbalancer, linux pcs) (Which ever one applies)
7. Backup pdc if needed for free (no need to purchase another windows
8. No need to restart server every week. (I think people that have
windows servers know what I mean here)
For me the biggest impact as far as going opensource/linux way is
maintenance savings. You deploy on linux and you come back to it in 6
months and it still runs. The only thing to worry about is power
outage. If you go the other way then you have to baby sit your