[Fwd: Re: [SLE] Duelling SAMBAs - quick questions?]
Sorry, but ... Jonathan Brooks wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the only time you'd really want to use SAMBA is if you have to support windows boxes? Can CUPS share printers round the network without SAMBA?
... OF COURSE IT CAN (sorry again, what a question ...) Well, I need to write some more here: I mean, what do we need Samba for if and only if for the fact that M$ doesn't comply to the broad standards others are using? I simply guess that M$ doesn't do it because they probably think that they wouldn't sell anything anymore and therefore wouldn't make any money anymore! How about this? Samba exists only because of the fact that M$ doesn't support all the other stuff (well enough at least or demands loooots of money for it) and - of cause - because some people still want to use Windows (even though they know better). Yeah, and then M$ probably keeps all others busy to not let them (us) simply overrun M$ in creating much better and more usefull applications and systems. Well, that's at least my opinion. :-D :-D Martin
Please don't get me wrong, I think that SAMBA is a great piece of software - I use it at work, along with NFS and LDAP. The whole reason I wrote the email was that it's all so bloody complicated and relatively insecure - I just wanted to get people's opinion on whether there something else out there that's worth looking at - apart from VPN :) Cheers, Jon. Martin Deppe wrote:
Sorry, but ...
Jonathan Brooks wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the only time you'd really want to use SAMBA is if you have to support windows boxes? Can CUPS share printers round the network without SAMBA?
... OF COURSE IT CAN (sorry again, what a question ...)
Well, I need to write some more here:
I mean, what do we need Samba for if and only if for the fact that M$ doesn't comply to the broad standards others are using? I simply guess that M$ doesn't do it because they probably think that they wouldn't sell anything anymore and therefore wouldn't make any money anymore! How about this?
Samba exists only because of the fact that M$ doesn't support all the other stuff (well enough at least or demands loooots of money for it) and - of cause - because some people still want to use Windows (even though they know better).
Yeah, and then M$ probably keeps all others busy to not let them (us) simply overrun M$ in creating much better and more usefull applications and systems. Well, that's at least my opinion. :-D
:-D Martin
Well then, I guess you hit your goal, didn't you? :-D As it has been written here before, CUPS is a usefull system inside a Linux network and even some other Unixes and nfs is very usefull when using ANY Unix and even DOS, all Windows versions (incl. 3.x if I am not wrong), even on MACs and probably some more systems I even don't know yet. It really depends on what your environment and your intention is. So, you are wellcome if I can be of some (or more) help. ;-) Yours Martin Jonathan Brooks wrote:
Please don't get me wrong, I think that SAMBA is a great piece of software - I use it at work, along with NFS and LDAP. The whole reason I wrote the email was that it's all so bloody complicated and relatively insecure - I just wanted to get people's opinion on whether there something else out there that's worth looking at - apart from VPN :)
Cheers, Jon.
Martin Deppe wrote:
Sorry, but ...
Jonathan Brooks wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the only time you'd really want to use SAMBA is if you have to support windows boxes? Can CUPS share printers round the network without SAMBA?
... OF COURSE IT CAN (sorry again, what a question ...)
Well, I need to write some more here:
I mean, what do we need Samba for if and only if for the fact that M$ doesn't comply to the broad standards others are using? I simply guess that M$ doesn't do it because they probably think that they wouldn't sell anything anymore and therefore wouldn't make any money anymore! How about this?
Samba exists only because of the fact that M$ doesn't support all the other stuff (well enough at least or demands loooots of money for it) and - of cause - because some people still want to use Windows (even though they know better).
Yeah, and then M$ probably keeps all others busy to not let them (us) simply overrun M$ in creating much better and more usefull applications and systems. Well, that's at least my opinion. :-D
:-D Martin
Martin Deppe wrote:
Well then, I guess you hit your goal, didn't you? :-D
As it has been written here before, CUPS is a usefull system inside a Linux network and even some other Unixes and nfs is very usefull when using ANY Unix and even DOS, all Windows versions (incl. 3.x if I am not wrong), even on MACs and probably some more systems I even don't know yet.
It really depends on what your environment and your intention is.
So, you are wellcome if I can be of some (or more) help. ;-)
Yours Martin
NFS is insecure and easily hackable from what I hear. Newer forms of NFS are more secure, especially the kerberorized variety, i.e. uses kerberos for authentication. I am not sure if these are available in open source form, but are available with Solaris. SAMBA implements CIFS, an open standard, which is useful on both UNIX and Windows. For NFS on other platforms, there are many commericial products for DOS (pcnfs), Windows 3.1, and Mac OS 7.x - 9.x. As Mac OS X is BSD UNIX flavor on top of a Mach kernel, it naturally has NFS. For Windows NT 4.0 - 5.2 (WinNT/XP/2K/2K3), I'm not sure what's available. I know that wit the freely downloadable MS SFU 3.5, you can make Windows into a NFS server, and even support NIS, which is mapped to ActiveDirectory domain accounts. However, I think most just go the SAMBA route, as the performance for file share is very good on Linux and there are no artificial limitations for number of simultaneous user connections like there are on Windows. As for printer shares, Windows IPP and CUPS interoperability is a little tricky. Using Windows as a IPP host involves use of IIS6 (Windows 2003) or IIS5 (Windows 2000/XP). MS IIS 5 is notoriously hackable and needs particular care to harden it. For printers that have good Linux support, I'd highly recomend using CUPS, which can be a initially tricky to setup involving tweaking xinetd configs, etc. If you are unlucky to have a printer that ONLY has Windows driver support and no Linux support, such as newer Epson printers, then I recommend setting Windows to be a LP host, this is done by adding the Print Services for UNIX package. On Linux, you configure to point to the IP address (or name used in DNS or HOST file), use postscript, and use the printer share name used in Windows. I think what happens is that print jobs sent to Windows LP are translated to native Windows GDI, which is then sent through the Windows print driver; so don't do this for postscript printers, as postscript is translated to GDI, an then back to postscript. :-( Lastly, with SAMBA, there's a way to use it to host actual Windows drivers. When users connect to the Windows print share (which is really Linux w/ SAMBA 3.0), it will install the native Windows print driver from Linux!!! This is also tricky to setup. You first must setup a Windows print share with the installed Windows drivers. SAMBA can then download the print drivers into Linux, and Linux can be configured to share the printer and also support Windows RPC mechanism to install those downloaded drivers. Hope some of these ideas help. For really choice reading, I would highly recommend Bruce Perens' Open Source Series of books on SAMBA. One such book I like is "The Official SAMBA-3 HOWTO and Reference Guide" by John H. Terpstra and Jelmer R. Vernooij (Editors).
Regarding using Windows as a print server - DON'T! Windows cannot handle large print jobs, the spooler goes to sleep, causing real problems. I have seen it many a time. For instance if you are printing a 200 page word document to a network printer and another computer spools a small print job. You will find that part way through the 200 page print job Windows will stop spooling the data long enough for the printer to start printer the other print job. This will reset all the page setup and when the Windows spooler gets around to sending the next bit of data the page layout will be lost. So much for a multi-tasking operating system which can't spool data properly to a printer. CUPS is a far superior product in so many ways. People may complain about the difficulties in configuring CUPS but at least it works. -- Regards, Graham Smith ---------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 13:46, Graham Smith wrote:
Regarding using Windows as a print server - DON'T!
Windows cannot handle large print jobs, the spooler goes to sleep, causing real problems. I have seen it many a time.
For instance if you are printing a 200 page word document to a network printer and another computer spools a small print job. You will find that part way through the 200 page print job Windows will stop spooling the data long enough for the printer to start printer the other print job. This will reset all the page setup and when the Windows spooler gets around to sending the next bit of data the page layout will be lost.
So much for a multi-tasking operating system which can't spool data properly to a printer.
CUPS is a far superior product in so many ways. People may complain about the difficulties in configuring CUPS but at least it works.
Which version of Windows Graham? ME or 2k? :)
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:37, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 13:46, Graham Smith wrote:
Regarding using Windows as a print server - DON'T!
Windows cannot handle large print jobs, the spooler goes to sleep, causing real problems. I have seen it many a time.
For instance if you are printing a 200 page word document to a network printer and another computer spools a small print job. You will find that part way through the 200 page print job Windows will stop spooling the data long enough for the printer to start printer the other print job. This will reset all the page setup and when the Windows spooler gets around to sending the next bit of data the page layout will be lost.
So much for a multi-tasking operating system which can't spool data properly to a printer.
CUPS is a far superior product in so many ways. People may complain about the difficulties in configuring CUPS but at least it works.
Which version of Windows Graham? ME or 2k? :)
I think you will find it is all Windows versions including XP, but note I said a network printer. I'm not sure about a printer directly connected to a Windows box but suspect it could happen. -- Regards, Graham Smith ---------------------------------------------------------
Martin Deppe wrote:
Sorry, but ...
Jonathan Brooks wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the only time you'd really want to use SAMBA is if you have to support windows boxes? Can CUPS share printers round the network without SAMBA?
... OF COURSE IT CAN (sorry again, what a question ...)
Well, I need to write some more here:
I mean, what do we need Samba for if and only if for the fact that M$ doesn't comply to the broad standards others are using? I simply guess that M$ doesn't do it because they probably think that they wouldn't sell anything anymore and therefore wouldn't make any money anymore! How about this?
Samba exists only because of the fact that M$ doesn't support all the other stuff (well enough at least or demands loooots of money for it) and - of cause - because some people still want to use Windows (even though they know better).
Yeah, and then M$ probably keeps all others busy to not let them (us) simply overrun M$ in creating much better and more usefull applications and systems. Well, that's at least my opinion. :-D
Windows XP supports IPP, which CUPS uses. W98 requires an update from MS.
James Knott wrote:
Martin Deppe wrote:
Sorry, but ...
Jonathan Brooks wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the only time you'd really want to use SAMBA is if you have to support windows boxes? Can CUPS share printers round the network without SAMBA?
... OF COURSE IT CAN (sorry again, what a question ...)
Well, I need to write some more here:
I mean, what do we need Samba for if and only if for the fact that M$ doesn't comply to the broad standards others are using? I simply guess that M$ doesn't do it because they probably think that they wouldn't sell anything anymore and therefore wouldn't make any money anymore! How about this?
Samba exists only because of the fact that M$ doesn't support all the other stuff (well enough at least or demands loooots of money for it) and - of cause - because some people still want to use Windows (even though they know better).
Yeah, and then M$ probably keeps all others busy to not let them (us) simply overrun M$ in creating much better and more usefull applications and systems. Well, that's at least my opinion. :-D
Windows XP supports IPP, which CUPS uses. W98 requires an update from MS.
Hey, proof me wrong on that, I would like that. Maybe there is really something happening over there ... ? Martin
On Monday 03 January 2005 11:32, Martin Deppe wrote:
Sorry, but ...
Jonathan Brooks wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the only time you'd really want to use SAMBA is if you have to support windows boxes? Can CUPS share printers round the network without SAMBA?
... OF COURSE IT CAN (sorry again, what a question ...)
Well, I need to write some more here:
I mean, what do we need Samba for if and only if for the fact that M$ doesn't comply to the broad standards others are using? I simply guess that M$ doesn't do it because they probably think that they wouldn't sell anything anymore and therefore wouldn't make any money anymore! How about this?
Samba exists only because of the fact that M$ doesn't support all the other stuff (well enough at least or demands loooots of money for it) and - of cause - because some people still want to use Windows (even though they know better).
Ok, you did not have a smiley on that last statement, therefore implying that I seriously should know better. Therefore, you will please inform me of the name and URL of the tax software that is written for Linux. I will gladly pay money for it, and persuade my wife that she can finally leave Windows behind... oh, well, she also has ACT! from her employment. You have a Linux version of that with perfect turnaround? URL please. Thanks. You should make this knowledge more widespread, to help tens of thousands who remain tied to Windows for only a few (what they think) Win-only apps. Kevin (who doesn't care what Windows supports -- only cares what supports Windows-but-not-yet-Linux)
elefino wrote:
On Monday 03 January 2005 11:32, Martin Deppe wrote:
Sorry, but ...
Jonathan Brooks wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the only time you'd really want to use SAMBA is if you have to support windows boxes? Can CUPS share printers round the network without SAMBA?
... OF COURSE IT CAN (sorry again, what a question ...)
Well, I need to write some more here:
I mean, what do we need Samba for if and only if for the fact that M$ doesn't comply to the broad standards others are using? I simply guess that M$ doesn't do it because they probably think that they wouldn't sell anything anymore and therefore wouldn't make any money anymore! How about this?
Samba exists only because of the fact that M$ doesn't support all the other stuff (well enough at least or demands loooots of money for it) and - of cause - because some people still want to use Windows (even though they know better).
Ok, you did not have a smiley on that last statement, therefore implying that I seriously should know better. Therefore, you will please inform me of the name and URL of the tax software that is written for Linux. I will gladly pay money for it, and persuade my wife that she can finally leave Windows behind... oh, well, she also has ACT! from her employment. You have a Linux version of that with perfect turnaround? URL please.
Thanks. You should make this knowledge more widespread, to help tens of thousands who remain tied to Windows for only a few (what they think) Win-only apps.
Kevin (who doesn't care what Windows supports -- only cares what supports Windows-but-not-yet-Linux)
Ok, so lets go for a running system of your choice/needs. As of what I got from your other mails (what I already requested: depends on what your environment and intentions are) I had a similiar setup of what you have today a couple of years ago, when we were at Samba V1.x. That was running great Actually I had a gateway with firewall, file and printservices for my Linux box (Dual boot with Windows 98) and Samba with Home and Print services for my own Box and a Windows-only Box of another user. I have to admit that it took me a little while at that time to get it up and running in this configuration but I was quite new to Linux at that time (allthough Unix has been my favorite OS since 1985 almost). But after having it set up, the second user could permanently work under Windows (with home and print services on gateway running samba) and I could - depending what I needed/wanted start Linux (using nfs and lprg at that time) or Windows (using samba) with no problem at all. Today - as of my experience - it got much easier to install and config samba by using YaST since SuSE improved it a lot since then and - of course - samba improved quite a lot, but I don't use samba anymore, at least for the moment. So, if you set up a samba server with yast, setup all shares you need/want and then simply connect from your clients to the shares and there you are. If this doesn't help you to have the confidence that it will work, for sure is possible and you simply have to figure out how I might get going to set up my system using samba again (which actually I wanted to do anyways) if you like me to help you this way (and maybe run into the same problems you experience) let me know. I'd like to be of help then. If not we might simply end this thread and forget everything I said/wrote regarding this issue. :-) Cheers Martin
participants (7)
-
elefino -
Graham Smith -
James Knott -
Joaquin Menchaca -
Jonathan Brooks -
Martin Deppe -
Mike McMullin