Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:06:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> To: notme <notme@lvdi.net> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FreeBSD + Samba to substitute Netware Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906161050590.32898-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> In-Reply-To: <37670660.A97F5F9F@lvdi.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, notme wrote: > Hi, > > The following is kinda a opinion question... > I am just wondering if it would be wise to substitute a Netware > server with FreeBSD + Samba. I have setup a FBSD server during > last semester for my high school. (We got some new PCs, and > Apple AIX sever no longer can serve) We are planning to get Net- > ware this coming school year (1999-2000), and I am wondering if > there is a way, or if it wise to continue using FreeBSD instead. (Since > everything is setup, and I have shell script to add all users. :) Stick with FreeBSD and Samba. You could probably even put Samba on the Apple AIX (A/UX?) server. > Basically, we only do file serving (we don't even have e-mail), and > we have Foolproof for security in Windoze. We currently have > 3 labs of 40 PII 350s, which I found FreeBSD to have no problem > serving... We also have several hundred Apple G3s, and if I'm > correct, Netatalk will allow FreeBSD servers to communicate with > Macs. I've not used Netatalk yet, though I might, since we have a small handful of old Macs on our network. We have over 500 Windows machines here being served by 5 NT servers, which I wouldn't hesitate to replace with FreeBSD+Samba boxes given the chance (permission, rather). > I believe one of the main reason we're approaching Netware is for > its security. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a logon > procedure for Netware clients, right?) But I am wondering, if > there is ports similar to Netware's. (the Client-server relation, > logon... stuff like that) Netware is not any more secure than the FreeBSD+Samba solution. Also, since Samba appears as an NT server to all of your Win* clients, there is no need to install any extra client software, as you must with Netware. > I personally have not experience with Netware, and of course, I do > not know its ability. However, I much prefer the FreeBSD since I > have much more experience with it. Netware is a lot nicer than NT itself, but if you already have a Samba solution going, that's even better. I know very large sites that use Samba to serve many thousands of clients, so there is no question that it can do what you want. The only drawback is the more advanced management features that you might find in Netware will be lacking in Samba, at least for now. Someone will write them eventually, or you could even write them yourself. :-) -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet. For Intel x86 and Alpha architectures (SPARC under development). ( http://www.freebsd.org ) "One should admire Windows users. It takes a great deal of courage to trust Windows with your data." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9906161050590.32898-100000>