I'm just curious: It seems that more and more people are using 3.0 (or 3.0a20). Obviously on this list we normally hear the worst (ie xxx doesn't work, why?). What I would like to know about are 3.0 success stories. Stability? Platform? Compiler? Gotcha's encountered? Here is what I am considering: a Mandrake 9.0 box with it's default gcc 3.2, I am still using a windows 2K Advanced Server to do AD stuff but would eventually like to migrate that to the linux box as well. Thanks Barry Hunter Priest
On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 12:43, Barry Hunter Priest wrote:> I'm just curious: It seems that more and more people are using 3.0 (or > 3.0a20). Obviously on this list we normally hear the worst (ie xxx > doesn't work, why?). What I would like to know about are 3.0 success > stories. Stability? Platform? Compiler? Gotcha's encountered? > > Here is what I am considering: a Mandrake 9.0 box with it's default gcc > 3.2, I am still using a windows 2K Advanced Server to do AD stuff but > would eventually like to migrate that to the linux box as well.Well, firstly grab 3.0 from CVS. Things have got a *lot* better in the last few weeks, and 3.0 is now tracking HEAD pretty well on the stuff that matters. On moving from Win2k to Samba, we are working getting the 'Vampire' stuff going for that, but we will only be an NT4 level DC for some time yet. (Assistance in moving us to Win2k level always appreciated :-) However, as a member server we are pretty solid. This stuff is used in production NAS appliances, so has actually had a very solid going over by some very professional QA folk. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett abartlet@pcug.org.au Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet@samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet@hawkerc.net http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20021110/46ab87a6/attachment.bin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1> Message: 10 > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:43:31 -0600 > From: Barry Hunter Priest <hunter@geog.tamu.edu> > To: samba@lists.samba.org > Subject: [Samba] taking the 3.0 plunge > > I'm just curious: It seems that more and more people are using 3.0 (or > 3.0a20). Obviously on this list we normally hear the worst (ie xxx > doesn't work, why?). What I would like to know about are 3.0 success > stories. Stability? Platform? Compiler? Gotcha's encountered? > > Here is what I am considering: a Mandrake 9.0 box with it's default gcc > 3.2, I am still using a windows 2K Advanced Server to do AD stuff but > would eventually like to migrate that to the linux box as well. >Just to save you some time, you can get RPMS from cvs from about 2 weeks ago: http://ranger.dnsalias.com/mandrake/mandrake9.0/samba-3.0-cvs/ They will parallel install with 2.2.x, so you can choose your samba easily. You can build your own (which will also parallel install) by checking out a copy of head from cvs, then: $ cd packaging/Mandrake $ sh makerpms-cvs.sh (please read the README, it should explain some of the options avialable). Feedback welcome, I haven't had time to play with 3.0 much recently. Regards, Buchan - -- |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE9z7A6rJK6UGDSBKcRAqZrAJ9uS5v1aqOrRwQaFr7o0KVrSOSEVACZASYc /Djco7qhAZkG4OOBOYYWe00=rvP7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----