[CentOS] Samba4 questions

[Steve Campbell]

On 4/22/2014 2:40 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> Steve Campbell wrote:
>> On 4/22/2014 2:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Steve Campbell <campbell at cnpapers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure why I need that. As I stated, I'm a little new to Samba
>>>> and AD. For some reason, my research suggests that to get AD, I need
> Samba
>>>> 4.
>>>>
>>> Do you want to replace AD or just interoperate with a Microsoft AD?
>>> Samba 3 will do the latter.
>>>
>> I'll tell you what we've got now, and how the new stuff will be used.
>> I'm definitely not a windows type guy, and windows domains are confusing
>> as H*** to me.
>>
>> With our current netware:
>>
>> We have 3 "domains". They're really not domains but we have 3 separate
>> companies here. Based on the netware logins, you get certain volumes
>> mapped to windows drives. The netware login scripts do the mapping. We
>> have opted not to get a new Windows Server and whatever Netware is now.
>>
>> So I guess from the Samba standpoint, the volumes are shares. This
>> netware guy wants the ability to add new users to a "domain" that will
>> have common mappings, and all the other stuff like specific printers
>> attached. When the new user/machine is configured, the Windows domain is
>> specified as well for that user.
> <snip>
> I'm nowhere near a samba guru, but I'd think that the AD info - that's a
> version of LDAP - could *say* what shares a given user mounts.
>
> Wait, as I think of it, this is percolating through: nahhh, what you do is
> have three workgroups, and what they user is on gets that workgroup's
> shares.
>
>         mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
But do the workgroups have their own login scripts on the server? That's 
sort of been the difference between using workgroups and domains, at 
least from any readings I've done so far. We actually break the 
"workgroups/domains" down into departmental groups.

We're a newspaper corporation. We have 3 distinct newspapers here (by 
law, the newspapers must be distinct). Then there's the JOA that 
operates over the 3 newspapers that controls finance, production (press 
room and the like).

Within each newspaper, there is sub-workgroups like copy desk, editors, 
etc that all get subsets of the mappings.

Mark, thanks for the brain work. I'm not sure Samba 4 wouldn't be the 
better choice. I've subscribed to SerNet and downloaded the rpms. The 
server isn't loaded yet with the OS, so it's still planning time. And 
redundancy of any type hasn't been looked at yet, but I think Samba 4 is 
supposed to be more mature for that.

I probably should join the samba list from here on. Just a matter of 
time before someone shouts OT, but the original post was not.

steve