Samba 4.0 Released: the First Free Software Active Directory Compatible Server 343
Jeremy Allison - Sam writes "We released Samba 4.0 today, containing the first compatible Free Software implementation of Microsoft's Active Directory protocols. 'Samba 4.0 comprises an LDAP directory server, Heimdal Kerberos authentication server, a secure Dynamic DNS server, and implementations of all necessary remote procedure calls for Active Directory. Samba 4.0 provides everything needed to serve as an Active Directory Compatible Domain Controller for all versions of Microsoft Windows clients currently supported by Microsoft, including the recently released Windows 8. The Samba 4.0 Active Directory Compatible Server provides support for features such as Group Policy, Roaming Profiles, Windows Administration tools and integrates with Microsoft Exchange and Free Software compatible services such as OpenChange.'"
Full release notes are available, and you grab the files from the download page.
If only it were samba-ng (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gates is forked.
This will be embeddable on ARM appliances, and baked into VM management software, etc.
It only took 12 years... :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Tell it to the BSD license troll, who gave me his sophomore, libertarian rant on the FreeBSD funding thread... ;-)
Re:If only it were samba-tng (Score:5, Informative)
The AD DC is actually is a bunch of core libraries and services. To make things easiest for our users, the services are linked into and started up by one binary, but internally each different task ends up in a forked process (if appropriate). But we do one better, and allow this to be controlled at runtime, so with '-M single' it essentially becomes a giant state machine, and can be handled with a single gdb. Inter-process communication is via a unix domain socket based messaging system or full DCE/RPC pipes.
External processes can register specific named pipes (when, as we do by default, we use smbd as the file server, this is actually a key part of the design), or DCE/RPC server modules can be loaded (the OpenChange project provides such a module).
We could discuss if more or less of Samba's internal communication should use one design pattern or another, but what is more interesting is that without fanfare or bother, some of those ideas, implemented pragmatically rather than dogmatically, have become an essential part of how Samba is implemented. That pragmatism has then brought us the AD DC that we are so proud to announce today.
I also love that the shared libraries that we now use internally make Samba much smaller as well, reducing the disk space overhead.
Finally, a surprising amount of the code is actually in modules on ldb, our ldap-like database at the core of the system.
I know you were hoping to troll with what has been a long-running design philosophy, but when you spend the time building the system, you find the pragmatism rules the day, and we use a variety of tools to get the job done, and to get it done is a way that is most seamless to our users.
Andrew Bartlett
Samba Team
OpenChange (Score:3)
OpenChange, mentioned in the summary, handles the Exchange protocols. We are very proud of the close way we work with the OpenChange team.
Andrew Bartlett
Samba Team
No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh hell yes
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, licenses will still be required for these machines/users, but not for the OS.
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Interesting)
I already have loads of client licenses, but this means no more server licensing, so it will be significantly cheaper for small businesses to build a small network with full redundancy, and massively cheaper to build out large networks. Get this onto Ubuntu Server with a friendly interface, and MS will be close to dead in the water as far as servers go.
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but no. There are bunches and bunches of PHBs out there who will perpetually doubt that anyone can make a Microsoft server as good as Microsoft and would be more than a little afraid that by doing this, they would be in violation of some sort of license requirement. At the very least, it would void any support services if an exchange server were to connect to a Samba 4 AD domain. PHBs care a lot about stuff like that even if people rarely if ever use Microsoft's support.
For that dream to become a reality, a big player out there would have to step up and put their branding and reputation behind it. For example, IBM might be a great candidate for that. PHBs still know who IBM is. RedHat might not get the reception Linux users might think they deserve. Oracle, as much as I would like to see them die in a fire, might also be able to pull it off.
For now, the IT world is ruled by PHBs and one must always consider what things they might believe regardless of how ridiculous it may actually be.
Re: (Score:3)
You are right, but the bottom line (to steal the adage) is that "no one gets fired for choosing microsoft". Yes you are locked in, but you are locked in to an ecosystem that 90%+ of the world's businesses run on, so it is seen as the safest of all choices (and cost is a small factor compared to job safety).
This will take off when Samba can integrate with Google Apps and let companies throw away anything microsoft-related (but still be microsoft-like)...
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Informative)
My anecdote: 5 years ago we were a 95% Windows shop with only 15 Linux servers. Today we are a 90% Linux shop with near 1000 Linux servers. We went from 5 Windows Admins and 1 Linux admin to 6 Linux admins and 3 Windows Admins. Yet we are unlikely to convert AD to this for the exact same reasons. It's not just AD it's the plugins to AD the monitoring and the fact that, while it rarely breaks anyway, if something does break the amount of repair tools and articles on how to fix it are numerous. As that original 1 Linux admin I would like to see this as an option. But it's not very likely.
Re: (Score:3)
You are right, but the bottom line (to steal the adage) is that "no one gets fired for choosing microsoft". Yes you are locked in, but you are locked in to an ecosystem that 90%+ of the world's businesses run on, so it is seen as the safest of all choices (and cost is a small factor compared to job safety).
They used to say "no-one gets fired for buying IBM". Is that still true?
Re: (Score:3)
That's a misquote of an old thing about IBM. Guess what one of the platforms IBM are selling support for is? A clue is it (and probably all the other platforms IBM supports) can run SAMBA.
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft Don't support Shit (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry to point this out so bluntly, but I'm sick to death of this argument. that Microsoft is better than open source, because they offer full support to business customers. As a sys admin with 15 years under the belt, I can tell you that I have never gotten anything from Microsoft past a link to a technet support wizard that asks 4 obvious, general questions and always ends with "Sorry we cannot provide a solution to this problem, Do you find this article helpful?"
NO I FUCKIN' DON'T.
Microsoft would be the last place I would ever call if there was a critical server failure where downtime is money.
In the real world, this kind of support is provided by 3rd party Managed Service Companies who are paid separately anyways, so you might as well pay for support on a nix based system, as they are well known to be much more stable (look at your average local nix admin with his feet up knitting or making chainmail, because he's got his systems singing and cron-grepping him hourly reports about how awesome he is and why he deserves a raise, compare this you your best of breed bad ass wizard windows admin, stressed as fuck, up till 4am fixing stupid shit for peanuts)
Re: (Score:3)
IDK, I have no problems with my basic windows servers. I find that Server 2008R2 is very similar to our RHEL6 boxes - once you get it going, it just keeps going until you fuck with it for some reason like an upgrade of software.
And MS doesn't provide any more or less support than RedHat - if you pay for a support contract, you get the help you paid for. But as far as I can tell, you get almost nothing from any proprietary vendor just because you bought the software - you still have to pay extra for actual s
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I have read right here among the commentary that one can still use the Microsoft tools for managing a Samba server. Getting Samba set up initially might require some level of ability, but you know? As much as it pains me to admit it, you have to have at least as much ability to do it with Microsoft. Anyone who thinks they can't learn to do it under Linux is simply limiting themselves needlessly.
Existing OpenLDAP setups (Score:5, Informative)
I agree, existing OpenLDAP sites using Samba 3.x in cooperation with a host of other packages, using the traditional LDAP directory structure deployed on many Linux oriented sites are not going to migrate to Samba 4.0 as an AD DC any time soon. The change is just as big as the change to migrate to Microsoft's Active Directory, except that we provide a tested upgrade tool to handle the Samba-essential parts.
We want this to be easier, and the tools can certainly be extended to cover other schema items, and integration of these services can improve, because many of these can work well against a Microsoft Windows AD. However, we know this is a big leap, so we continue to support existing configurations (with the existing features. (For want of a better term, we call it a 'classic' domain).
The issue isn't as much being unable to use an LDAP server as a data store (but this became more difficult as we became more like AD), as that unless we were to implement on the fly schema translation, most of the same issues would remain (assumptions about AD or traditional schema and layout between Samba and the other tools on the LDAP backend), and so the result would not have be useful anyway!
As such, the LDAP backend has been put aside as an interesting technical modal that didn't work out. If a plausible use case ever comes up, then interested developers might revive some of it (the code and some tests remain where they are not impeding development), but for now there are no plans for support of anything other than local LDB files and native replication with other AD servers.
Andrew Bartlett
Samba Team
Not Invented Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Samba uses Heimdal Kerberos precisely because we did not wish to re-invent Kerberos. We bundle a known-working copy of that in the tree, and launch the KDC inside the samba process so it behaves as a seamless part of the AD DC. We provide plugins for the things that need to be AD-specific (such as PAC handling and reading the AD Database) for the Heimdal codebase to use.
For LDAP, we took a different approach, and instead wrote our own LDAP-like database on top of tdb. LDAP is in many ways much simpler at the core, and the hard parts are all the schema rules and special cases that are AD-specific anyway, and which we have special modules to handle (on top of LDB, which remains quite lightweight). That isn't to say that this would not have been possible - indeed, Luke Howard's XAD shows it is - but just that we decided to do that part in-house. I'm quite comfortable with that choice.
Andrew Bartlett
Samba Team
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd still wait 1/2 a year to put it into a test environment...
Why? Isn't the whole point of a test environment to find out if something has issues? I think that interested parties should put it into a test environment immediately, cause that's why they have a test environment. But yes, wait some time to put it into production.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't sound like you have much of a clue either to be honest; when you buy server licenses, you also need to buy "client" licenses to go with them. These are in addition to normal desktop Windows licenses (as far as I'm aware at least). Though if you're using a non-MS implementation of the server, I don't see why you should need the client licenses too. If you do, that's still a hefty cost, but at least you shouldn't need to upgrade them every few years when running SAMBA.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly :) I'd rather not have me or my employer fined or given a criminal record for this kind of thing, so I want to ensure that we are fully legal. Of course all the licensing BS and cost just makes it a royal PITA to upgrade, so our network is still running 2003 Server/Exchange. I was considering Server 2008 soon as 2003 will be out of maintenance in a few years, but.. I like this better! Still have to decide what to do with email, but there are some nice mature options out there compared to last time I
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing I'm the boss then :p I don't hate MS as much as when I was a student, but I'm definitely going to look into this. I'm not going to completely get rid of our Windows servers right now either. But when Server 2003 goes out of support, I expect I won't be upgrading.
I've done Windows Server and Exchange installs and upgrades without assistance. I did need help the first time I messed up Exchange I'll admit, but it's not that bad once you figure it out and do your research.
This just makes it way, way
Re:No more job security :) (Score:5, Interesting)
You do realize that many enterprise storage servers made by companies like IBM, Symantec, EMC, Dell etc. are or have been based on Samba code, right ?
Nah, probably not... :-). After all, you know that only Windows storage servers work with Windows clients don't you :-).
Jeremy
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that many enterprise storage servers made by companies like IBM, Symantec, EMC, Dell etc. are or have been based on Samba code, right ?
Nah, probably not... :-). After all, you know that only Windows storage servers work with Windows clients don't you :-).
Jeremy
Arrrgh!! I just realized that I hadn't logged in, so I'm posting this again under my /. name, not as Anonymous Coward...
Actually, this is a question I just got from some of my IT friends: A lot of smaller shops are (perhaps justifiably) hesitant to custom build a Samba4 based AD server, but they would be happy to run a nicely boxed solution like ClearOS or FreeNAS or some of the other "enterprise storage servers" like you mention.
My question is, has anyone gathered a list of what Linux savvy solution
Re: (Score:2)
Wait what?
I get that the client OS (presuming it is Microsoft Windows) must be licensed, but why the user?
This is the kind of thing I have been waiting for. A means to wedge other OSes into an AD oriented business network. Microsoft can just change a few things and make it required to run this or that server. They have played that game before where F/OSS has to catch up with changes Microsoft makes, but in the end they will lose because they can only make so many tweaks and changes before they risk compa
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, or accounts software (shudder) requires SQL server, but it will be nice to move that off to a VM and have all other network services running on Linux at last. Thankyou SAMBA team :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...
...
...
What did I just say? Now forget everything you've read here and enjoy MS licensing fees, don't forget to buy those CALs.
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Informative)
MySQL is utter crap. It's not a replacement for MS SQL, it's not a replacement for any decent SQL server. It took those bozos YEARS to finally get MySQL to not recognize Feb 31st as a valid date.
PostgreSQL is a potential replacement, but certainly not a drop-in replacement. Lots and lots of work would need to be done to convert between the different lingo's they speak and way features are implemented.
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Informative)
Spoken like someone who has NEVER done SQL development. SQL most definitely is not SQL, it's a world full of vendor specific dialects of SQL, each varying in subtle and incompatible ways. Not to mention each requires a different method of connection, protocol, authentication and integration.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. You can write code that can use all 3 interchangeably. I do it all the time, as my queries hit tables stored in all 3 formats and it's just way easier to go generic that try and keep your code strait between data sources. Generally if you can do MySQL then you can do everything else with ease. It's the people that have been working in an oracle shop their whole lives and they come out and work with us in the real world with dozens of mixed formats that they have to really learn how to code
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Informative)
ODBC? JDBC?
Neither of these normalize vendor specific dialects. Both of these require vendor specific drivers to implement vendor protocols. All of this leads to costly subtleties.
The grandparent is correct, both in its assertions about SQL and of you.
Re: (Score:2)
ODBC? JDBC?
Neither of these normalize vendor specific dialects...
Minor nitpick, but that should be "Neither of these completely normalize vendor specific dialects." ODBC function substitution (e.g. "{fn CONCAT(x,y)}") normalizes out some basic things, but probably won't cover everything you might want to do.
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Informative)
Just as long as you don't have to create a table, add any sort of triggers, or do anything interesting like automatic time stamping on modification/creation, choosing a random n entries out of the matches without shipping the entire huge set over a slow network, etc., then yes. As soon as you have to do something even slightly nontrivial, the difference between SQL dialects becomes the tenth circle of hell.
Re: (Score:3)
Most good databases support ANSI SQL standards, but those specifications are lacking in too many ways to build a completely functional application without having to poke around with implementation-specific hacks.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a ton of differences that are not normalized away by ODBC, including really basic functionality like the SQL code to drop or add multiple columns (and the need by some to manually drop indexes before dropping the columns, or the need to do a REORG TABLE after dropping columns). And, in spite of how incredibly old the ODBC standard is, ODBC drivers still don't implement some things or implement them incorrectly, so you really can't expect things to work with different DBMSs without testing.
Re:No more licensing fees :) (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would you be adding/dropping fields outside of installation/upgrading?
I'm not sure whether you intend "you" in the above to mean the person who wrote the "accounts software" referenced at the beginning of this thread, or me personally. My personal experience was with writing document clustering software (groups related documents together based on analysis of the content) that could analyze the text stored in virtually any SQL database with an ODBC driver and export the cluster results back into the database as a set of additional columns. It would add a Cluster ID column (rows with the same ID would be in the same cluster), a column indicating whether the document was the representative document (i.e. approximately the center) for the cluster, and a few other columns. If the user ran multiple calculations on the same database and wanted to replace some old results instead of adding new columns, the old columns would be dropped and replacement columns would be added -- this was done because sizes needed for the columns may vary between different calculations, so simply overwriting the old ones wouldn't necessarily work. Getting everything to work across all test databases (Oracle, MSSQL, DB2, MySQL, PostgreSQL) was a major pain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that SQL is all about the query language formalized structure. It says nothing about the procedures or how to control the backing server.
Think about SWL (structured written language). There are a few standards, one of which is the Roman standard. Using this standard, we can use the same character set to represent many different spoken languages. We can store meaning using the Roman SWL and anyone else who knows the structure can extract it.
However, the transforms and functions, cliches an
Re: (Score:3)
As a rule, MS SQL and Sybase are going to be pretty similar for most things, so it's fine to include it. (MS SQL was based off of Sybase until a few versions ago)
Re: (Score:2)
By retarded monkeys yes. Their installation CD requires IE. The software items had the worst designed interface I have ever seen. I really doubt it will work with any other SQL server.
If you try porting an app from one DB server to another you'll find out that there are some significant differences between SQL implementations too in terms of available functions, data types, etc.. it's possible to keep things generic, but I doubt most developers do so.
Re: (Score:3)
PL/SQL isn't the Oracle dialect of SQL, its the SQL-based procedural language supported by Oracle for triggers/procedures, etc. An application talking SQL to Oracle doesn't need to use PL/SQL, but it does need to use the Oracle dialect of SQL.
Samba Slashdotted (Score:2)
Slashdot does it again....
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot does it again....
I have a feeling that Microsoft slapped them with RIAA, MPAA and a few federal agents before anyone could finish downloading. What a shame, I got cutoff at "Active Director ".
fsck yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh My Gawd.
I have been waiting literally *years* for this.
This just made up for an otherwise very crappy day. No, this just fixed my whole year.
Re:fsck yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume you're a sysadmin.
Re:fsck yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Or he's into some really bizarre porn.
"Ooh yeah baby. That's it. Shove that NTFS ACL into a Posix ACL. Come on, harder... deeper... Oooh yeah! Map it to that sticky bit, baby! Map it!"
Re: (Score:3)
its getting warm in here !
Re:fsck yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, POSIX porn. Most people never even thought it existed, yet there it is, already a standard.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be interested to see the reviews on this over the next several months. I'm interested to see how well this performs under different levels of load, and how it utilized group policy. Kind of exciting in an extremely nerdy sort of way.
How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm assuming if Microsoft could legally stop this, they would.
Likely the interfaces aren't copyrightable and this is probably a clean implementation -- but I'm sure if Microsoft could trot out a patent or something else to stop people they would.
I can't imagine they want implementations of their stuff out there. (Granted, they mostly started out by implementing other people's stuff, so there may not be much they can do about it.)
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft provided them with documentation and helped them with interoperability testing. From TFA:
The Samba 4.0 Active Directory Compatible Server was created with help from the official protocol documentation published by Microsoft Corporation and the Samba Team would like acknowledge the documentation help and interoperability testing by Microsoft engineers that made our implementation interoperable.
"Active Directory is a mainstay of enterprise IT environments, and Microsoft is committed to support for interoperability across platforms," said Thomas Pfenning, director of development, Windows Server. "We are pleased that the documentation and interoperability labs that Microsoft has provided have been key in the development of the Samba 4.0 Active Directory functionality."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then allow me to say ... holy crap. As much as I have a hard time believing "Microsoft is committed to support for interoperability across platforms". They haven't historically been interested in that.
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Informative)
From the Groklaw article, the documentation for active directory was sold to the Samba project. The Samba project then went about using the documentation as a reference. Microsoft did not want to sell this documentation to the Samba project and were required to do so under court order. So no. They weren't all that willing to help out.
And if Microsoft starts playing "undocumented features" games again to break compatibility, they will find themselves in court again.
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course what you failed to mention is that Microsoft only did this because the European Commission forced them to [samba.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Of course what you failed to mention is that Microsoft only did this because the European Commission forced them to
Perhaps this is so NOW. But it will be interesting to see what direction Microsoft takes after Steve Ballmer's departure in 2013.
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Informative)
There isn't a court-ordered requirement for them to test it. There's a market enforced requirement :-).
Go into Frys (or local Geek store). Look at all the NAS boxes on the shelf. That's all Samba. Every one.
Now imagine you're Microsoft. A new version of Windows comes out and it doesn't work against all the "home NAS media servers" people have. Ooops :-(.
They test against Samba *all the time*, as it's good for their business to do so.
They also go a little above and beyond by helping test the AD server part of Samba (which isn't in wide production use yet) - they do that in their interop labs up in Redmond.
They provide free food for the engineers working late up there. It's not as good as the free Google food (but then again, hey - what is ? :-) :-).
Jeremy.
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do have to say, the AD interop labs were some of the most fun I've had in IT. And yes, it was great having the food brought in as we worked late into the night, night after night.
The best bits were being able to work side-by-side with their engineers solving some of the trickiest parts of the puzzle, or working over the results of running their testsuite. These things made Samba much better, and I'm happy to say how much we appreciate these opportunities.
Andrew Bartlett
Samba Team
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:4, Informative)
Wasn't Microsoft *required* by a court judgement or two to provide documentation and interoperability for several of their protocols? I don't think this was entirely out of the goodness of their hearts
See the heading "February 2008 fine" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft provided them with documentation
As per European Commission order and enforced with massive punitive fines levied over a decade. It had to be beat out of them. Don't think for a moment this is volitional. They just can't tolerate any more shareholder meetings where another billion euro fine is on the agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming if Microsoft could legally stop this, they would.
Likely the interfaces aren't copyrightable and this is probably a clean implementation -- but I'm sure if Microsoft could trot out a patent or something else to stop people they would.
I can't imagine they want implementations of their stuff out there. (Granted, they mostly started out by implementing other people's stuff, so there may not be much they can do about it.)
Well if this article is still valid, then I would say they don't mind Samba. http://linux.slashdot.org/story/08/10/23/1441200/microsoft-working-for-samba-interoperability [slashdot.org]
Microsoft helped (Score:5, Informative)
The EU is still a bit angry at Microsoft (remember when they had to release all of the documentation on their implementation of the SMB protocol?) and they don't need to be stoking that flame.
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, if anybody asks, it IS Microsoft's intent that other non-MS clients connect to AD. They specifically built a framework and API to allow 3rd party apps add their own schema to the database and query for user permissions. A few things I've worked with that do this are VMware vCenter and Cisco ACS firewall.
And no, that isn't because the EU made them, they've been doing this since the earlier days of active directory (at least, Server 2003 has this functionality anyways.)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to think that the whole Active Directory ecosystem is moving in a positive direction because of efforts like these. I have no problem with the LDAP + Kerberos + DNS + "Forests" and standardized structures model that Microsoft has championed; it is a very successful, flexible, and apparently extensible model and technology stack.
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Informative)
The SAMBA team said they received a lot of insight and understanding from their time with the MS engineers and were impressed and excited.
I'm not sure Microsoft is too concerned about SAMBA 4 being released.
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem. Microsoft provided a positive quote for the press release, and were involved in bug fixing to ensure interoperability.
So no, I don't think they hate it :-).
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:3)
You've never seen two politicians who couldn't stand each other stand together and say nice things about one another in front of a large enthusiastic crowd?
Or are you just really bad a sarcasm?
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Funny)
In the words of Francis Urquart:
"You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.." :-).
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? I was about to post a snarky reply when I noticed the name and the low-enough-to-be-convincing slashdot ID, so I'll make it more of a simple question.:Given that Microsoft was required to publish the documentation by the EU, and the fact that this basically proves they did comply with the courts orders, can you really be sure they don't hate it? Sure, it gets them off the hook, which is reason enough for them to have helped with the effort, but they can still hate it.
Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly their marketing and senior exec's hate it (although I doubt that - Thomas Pfenning is at director level in the Windows org and he think's it's pretty cool.
But I know their engineers think it's cool :-).
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:2)
But I know their engineers think it's cool :-).
Hmm, yeah, that part certainly makes sense. :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can someone mod this gentleman up please?
It's a sad reflection on slashdot if it's languishing at +2. Sort it out mods!
Will do.
What's new? (Score:3)
I did a network integration capstone course where we had linux and windows in a single active directory domain, with single sign on and all users and objects in one database. How is this different?
More power to them though, active directory is HUGE in the enterprise space. If you could integrate its security controls and policies into android tablets and smartphones, windows 8 and its lame tablet UI will never see the light of day in big business.
Re:What's new? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This new Samba release is the DC.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't jump the gun just yet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just an AD server. Why would running under Virtualization environments, Hyper-V, Multiple AD servers, matter ?
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:3)
You're going to have to catch me up why Hyper-V and Visualization matter in your sentence. If your V-Server depends on AD which is on the V-Server you're going to have an issue.
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/Virtualizing_Windows_Active_Directory.pdf [vmware.com]
People have already setup Samba4 and W2K8 ADs working together
http://admingeeks.blogspot.com/2011/05/samba-4-domain-controller-part-4-adding.html [blogspot.com]
The other issues are potentially a problem as there are thousands of different AD configurations out there, and all o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't most of that stuff already work with OpenLDAP and Kerberos? Wasn't the only remaining issue the MS-specific bits of the protocol? I mean, yes, those are questions worth asking, but you seem to be assuming the answer is no; I would tend to assume the answer is, mostly, yes.
This is not some upstart, fly-by-night system. Samba has been in heavy use in the enterprise space for many years. I've been amazed at some of the companies I've stumbled across that were using Samba servers even before the AD suppo
Re:I wouldn't jump the gun just yet (Score:5, Informative)
Samba 3+OpenLDAP+Heimdal Kerberos created what were often termed "Open Directory Services" by the Apple Crowd. They were mutant NT 4.0 Domains that had broken a bunch of the limitations of NT4, (such as multiple PDCs and levels of trusts.) provided LDAP and Kerberos, but to Windows, they were still just NT Domains to Windows. Not true ADs. XP and 2000 would disable Kerberos because it thought it was talking to NT4. Windows 7 dropped support for NT4 EXCEPT there was a special mode just for Samba 3 to work, and you had to edit the registry to get it working.
Samba 4.0 vs 'classic' NT4 like domains on LDAP (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, it was seeing the limitations of the NT4 modal that held back these domains that was one of the major reasons I started on the AD DC effort for Samba. I deployed (and indeed was involved in the creation of) a mixed Heimdal/Samba/LDAP domain, and saw how the lack of Group Policy caused real issues for a large network of Windows PCs. In my specialist area of Authentication, I also saw how NTLM authentication did and did not work, particularly in the load it put on the DCs. Kerberos is a much better authentication prototcol than NTLM, and I'm glad that Samba now not only can accept Kerberos authentication, but as the Domain Controller, it can now be the KDC too!
In the same way, I saw the writing on the wall for NT4 support for a long time, and I'm just very glad that the interoperability environment changed enough in time that we were able to get changes made to Samba and Windows to allow Samba NT4-like 'classic' domains to continue, long past when NT4 DCs became not only unsupported, but deliberately broken (in the name of increased security). As you mention it still requires a registry patch however, and so with the release of Samba 4.0 as an AD DC I look forward to Samba administrators being able to deploy a 'just works' solution again, even for the latest windows versions.
Andrew Bartlett
Samba Team
Coincidental timing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because if you have several hundred VMs in an organization that do nothing but act as local domain controllers for AD, you can now not spend that money on Windows licensing and instead do it with Linux?
But I guess that wasn't incredibly obvious.
Re:First post (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Administrative UI (Score:5, Informative)
Yes :-). That's why you can use the Windows tools to administer Samba4.0 AD server :-).
Jeremy.
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Funny)
Where the fuck do you think all that web-based administration plugs into, a unicorn?
Re: (Score:2)
Uh-huh. Right...
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but cloud-based services complement traditional computing environments, they do not replace them. If you're in certain situations (e.g., a small business with only 10 employees), the cloud can indeed be your entire IT infrastructure... but that won't work for everyone. Different needs for different organizations.
Re:GPLv3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh you mean corporations like IBM, EMC, Netgear, WDC,Google ? Yeah, the GPLv3 really scared them :-).
Listen to my presentation here:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2011/may/10/why-samba-switched-to-GPLv3/ [softwarefreedom.org]
to explain why GPLv3 is a *better* license for commercial use the GPLv2.
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to know a lot about Microsoft's position on Samba, are you part of the Samba team? I used to have a lot to do with Tridge during his TiVo hacking days.
Re:GPLv3 (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I'm Jeremy Allison - the original poster. I created Samba along with tridge (he was there first, and is much smarter than me though :-). I thought that was obvious, sorry :-).
Jeremy.
Re:GPLv3 (Score:4, Interesting)
/. is not what it was, but then again it never was :-).
I miss the .bruce.perens/bruce.perens/bruce.perens./ wars.. and the "information wants to be wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide" guy :-). And who could forget sig11's "will the real Bruce Perens please stand up" ?
But Tim Potter (old Samba Team member) and I loved the trolls :-).
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, what? Tell me more. I'm dumb about these details.
Why would the GPLv3 prevent anyone from running this anywhere on any scale?