On 11/5/21 08:49, L.P.H. van Belle via samba wrote:> Just a short reply on this part. > >> Currently, the Samba project is hurt by a lack of good documentation. > I dont fully agree here.. So its a .. Yes and No. > > There is lots of good documentation, but a "simple" NT4Dom is totaly different > from an ADDOM, lots of things need to be taken account of and more basic knowledge > these days is (sadly) needed, but that with almost any software. > > Older samba 3.x and NT4 is so different and in different i mean, more strict > to setup correctly. > >> Samba 3 documentation was really good, but that effort wasn't >> repeated >> for v. 4 for some reason. There are no current books available, > > Well, there is a very good book, but .. Can you read german? > https://www.kania-online.de/fachbuecher/samba-4/ > >Oh, cool! I can read/speak German. I wonder if he's interested in a translated edition, not that I probably have time to do this myself. Agreed on NT domain vs. AD domain. One documentation step that would help tremendously is to *completely* separate the NT, AD, and workgroup documentation. Who cares if this results in repetition of some things?> Greetz, > > Louis > >
On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 09:08 -0500, Patrick Goetz via samba wrote:> > On 11/5/21 08:49, L.P.H. van Belle via samba wrote: > > Just a short reply on this part. > > > > > Currently, the Samba project is hurt by a lack of good > > > documentation. > > I dont fully agree here.. So its a .. Yes and No. > > > > There is lots of good documentation, but a "simple" NT4Dom is > > totaly different > > from an ADDOM, lots of things need to be taken account of and more > > basic knowledge > > these days is (sadly) needed, but that with almost any software. > > > > Older samba 3.x and NT4 is so different and in different i mean, > > more strict > > to setup correctly. > > > > > Samba 3 documentation was really good, but that effort wasn't > > > repeated > > > for v. 4 for some reason. There are no current books available, > > > > Well, there is a very good book, but .. Can you read german? > > https://www.kania-online.de/fachbuecher/samba-4/ > > > > > > Oh, cool! I can read/speak German. I wonder if he's interested in a > translated edition, not that I probably have time to do this myself. > > Agreed on NT domain vs. AD domain. One documentation step that > would > help tremendously is to *completely* separate the NT, AD, and > workgroup > documentation. Who cares if this results in repetition of some > things?The guy who carried a major update a few years ago :-) The other problem is the names for things, above you refer to 'NT', 'AD' and workgroup, but they all use 'workgroup' I refer to the 'classic' domains as 'NT4-Style' domains and 'AD' domains as just that. A 'domain member' is a Windows member of a domain, I refer to a Linux or BSD member of a domain as a 'Unix domain member', finally, any Samba machine that is not a member of domain is a 'standalone server'. Any of the previous types can be used as a fileserver, printserver, etc. Rowland
On 11/5/21 10:08 AM, Patrick Goetz via samba wrote:> > > On 11/5/21 08:49, L.P.H. van Belle via samba wrote: >> Just a short reply on this part. >> >>> Currently, the Samba project is hurt by a lack of good documentation. >> I dont fully agree here.. So its a .. Yes and No. >> >> There is lots of good documentation, but a "simple" NT4Dom is totaly >> different >> from an ADDOM, lots of things need to be taken account of and more >> basic knowledge >> these days is (sadly) needed, but that with almost any software. >> >> Older samba 3.x and NT4 is so different and in different i mean, more >> strict >> to setup correctly. >> >>> Samba 3 documentation was really good, but that effort wasn't >>> repeated >>> for v. 4 for some reason. There are no current books available, >> >> Well, there is a very good book, but .. Can you read german? >> https://www.kania-online.de/fachbuecher/samba-4/ >> >> > > Oh, cool!? I can read/speak German. I wonder if he's interested in a > translated edition, not that I probably have time to do this myself. > > Agreed? on NT domain vs. AD domain.? One documentation step that would > help tremendously is to *completely* separate the NT, AD, and workgroup > documentation.? Who cares if this results in repetition of some things?IMHO, any NT4 documentation should be cloned, put on an static website with a big warning, much like some old Samba 3 documentation on the project websites, and assume it doesn't exist anymore. Documentation on NT4 style domains only encourage people to install new ones today. Maybe the smb.conf should have a setting like: i_really_know_what_i_am_doing_and_promise_i_will_get_rid_of_this_nt4_domain_very_soon = yes In order for a NT DC to start. :)