On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:40:47 +0100 Rowland penny <rpenny at samba.org> wrote: [snip]> > I remember it now, it started last September ( see here: > https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2015-September/194047.html) and > it could have been the longest running thread on here and you still > couldn't get it to work.More accurately: Couldn't get it to work the way *we* needed it to work.>[snip]> > Don't bother on my account with the smb.conf, as I will not be > wasting any more time on your posts. I spent too much time last time.I don't blame you. Trust me: I really don't want to be approaching this, again, either :/ I actually had domain logins & roaming profiles working, at one point. But that was before I ripped-out everything that wasn't necessary for straight workgroup serving. Now I'm wondering just how much I'd have to put back, essentially. Regards, Jim -- Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my web form at <http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php>.
On 26/07/16 18:25, Jim Seymour wrote:> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:40:47 +0100 > Rowland penny <rpenny at samba.org> wrote: > > [snip] >> I remember it now, it started last September ( see here: >> https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2015-September/194047.html) and >> it could have been the longest running thread on here and you still >> couldn't get it to work. > More accurately: Couldn't get it to work the way *we* needed it to work. > > [snip] >> Don't bother on my account with the smb.conf, as I will not be >> wasting any more time on your posts. I spent too much time last time. > I don't blame you. Trust me: I really don't want to be approaching > this, again, either :/ > > I actually had domain logins & roaming profiles working, at one point. > But that was before I ripped-out everything that wasn't necessary for > straight workgroup serving. Now I'm wondering just how much I'd have > to put back, essentially. > > Regards, > JimI will add this, but this will be my last post on the subject: a workgroup != NT4-style domain != AD domain Find out just what your new program requires and then alter your setup to match these requirements, don't try and make Samba act in a way it isn't meant to. Rowland
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 18:45:15 +0100 Rowland penny <rpenny at samba.org> wrote: [snip]> > I will add this, but this will be my last post on the subject: > > a workgroup != NT4-style domain != AD domainI know this.> > Find out just what your new program requires and then alter your > setup to match these requirements,Would that I could. It's actually a set of servers, providing services, and clientware. Believe-it-or-not, the vendor's people really don't seem to understand how it all works. All they seem to know is they're used to operating in a MS AD environment. Now stuff isn't working and they appear to be lost. My *guess* (which I'll bet is better than their guesses) is that domain-level auth is the missing piece that's causing them grief. I figured that, if I could get that going, easily, to test my theory, I would.> don't try and make Samba act in a > way it isn't meant to.Oh, no. Tried that once. I'm not ever going to try to go there again. Thing is: Whatever I do is now on a live system. Anything I try, beyond trivial config changes, will have to be done on "my own" time, and I cannot afford to break the server too badly. I think that, if I want to figure out what I have to do, I'll have to set up a new test server on my test network and play. Regards, Jim -- Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my web form at <http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php>.