Main reason for this idea of migration is the xp pcs requirement of group policy, I couldn't move over to samba/nfs/nis until there were no xp

what I meant, was that I couldn't move active directory over first because of the use of group policy. If I did, I would have to configure local policies on the xp clients and use logon scripts to enforce registry settings for the user accounts, unless I used mandatory profiles for the users, which I don’t want to do. The other aspect of the slow move would be that I can test the 2 side by side and have user input on the configuration of the pc's and user accounts. Also, my skills are limited on Linux, compared to MS AD networks, so it will also be a trial for me. Many Thanks Alan Loughlin -----Original Message----- From: Paul Graydon [mailto:graydpau@hhc.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2005 11:52 To: suse-linux-uk-schools@suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Migration Questions - MS Services for Unix and freenx On 13 Jun 2005 at 9:37, Alan Loughlin wrote: pcs.

From this, I do think this method could allow me to move more slowly, due to proprietary software holding me back. Waiting for successmaker to come out with cross platform capabilities, which I've been told they are working on.

I'm sorry.. you lost me there. What about group policy requirements restricts you from making a smoother transition? ----- Paul Graydon Network Technician Haywards Heath College http://www.hhc.ac.uk (01444) 456281 "Joy is not in things; it is in us." Richard Wagner -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-help@suse.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005

On 13 Jun 2005 at 18:38, Matt Johnson wrote:

--- Alan Loughlin wrote:

...

what I meant, was that I couldn't move active directory over first because of the use of group policy. If I did, I would have to configure local policies on the xp clients and use logon scripts to enforce registry settings for the user accounts, unless I used mandatory profiles for the users, which I don’t want to do.

I second this. Unless I'm much mistaken (after some research into the subject a few months back) the options you've outlined are indeed the ones open.

Unless (and I hope) Paul's about to correct us on this... AD is a requirement for non-local group policies in XP... We've gone with mandatory profiles for exactly this reason. Please tell me there's another way...

Ta

-- Matt Johnson

If there is, its not one I know :-( We use Zen on our Novell servers to push out our policy packages, which is extremely effective in our experience. Unless you're looking to buy Novells Open Enterprise Server, that's not an option. To be honest, the procedure looks about the same as we're looking to undertake, and all we're doing is mergine two college networks together. After some debate we settled on adopting a 'softly softly' approach over 12 months that gives us fallbacks at every stage of the process. ----- Paul Graydon Network Technician Haywards Heath College http://www.hhc.ac.uk (01444) 456281 "Joy is not in things; it is in us." Richard Wagner

--- Tim Fletcher wrote:

1. As far as I know there is no support for group policy style restrictions on unix boxes

There are, but it's file-system dependant. Ext3, *does* have support for ACLs (Access Control Lists) which are about as close to group-policies as you'll get.

2. Don't bother trying to run the unix side of NIS or SFU on a 64bit machine (ie AMD64) as this just doesn't work (from bitter experience), but it does work fine on 32 bit machines.

Running it in a 32-bit chroot, should provide no problems. -- Thomas Adam. ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com