[CentOS] RE: Using CentOS as a file server on a win2K domain--nothing to do with alternatives

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 10:34, Robert Hanson wrote: 
> maybe i asked the original question improperly and im almost sure this one
> isnt posed perfectly either.
> 
> what do really large companies use that do not allow or have 100% migrated
> away from "M$ windows servers" in their networks yet allow "windows clients"
> in their networks "and" must service all their windows clients needs just as
> *if* their were M$ servers on their networks?
> 
> does this make better sense?
I'm not sure it makes sense as a general question, because
out-of-the-box 'Windows servers' provide almost no services except
for active directory which is a fairly recent addition.  Everything
else is a mix of add-on products that may or may not be strictly
Microsoft.

> i believe this is what everyone is getting at in all these threads and yet
> there appears to be no 100% functional open source solution right now, is
> there?

You have to ask the question per-application and phrase it as to whether
the replacement is wire-level-protocol compatible or not.  For example
you can replace windows file servers with Linux/samba and depending
on how you used authentication and ACL's may not see any difference
at all from the clients.  Samba can also replace a Windows NT PDC
transparently, but can't yet do everything an active directory server
does.  You can replace DHCP services and DNS easily, and if you
are using SMTP/POP/IMAP clients for email, you can replace those
services.  Beyond that, you get into specific clients and services
where there aren't any generic answers.  Mostly you need to plan
a 'forklift' upgrade where you toss all your old client software
the day you replace the server - not something a large organization
ever wants to do.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com