× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



I have all windows desktops and all servers running Linux at my company.  I
have setup samba.  If you have any questions, I can help.  The smb.conf is
really not that tough.  It is intimidating with the amount of parameters it
can have, but to get running you can usually do it with between 3-10 lines.

Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
http://www.rutgersinsurance.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <bdietz@3x.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: Samba (was: OS-X vs. Windows)


>
> Simon,  Why bother with a port of SAMBA.  As I sat here tonight during a
> slooowww v4r5 upgrade I decided to see if I could grab the latest samba
> binaries and toss( actually FTP ) them on my v5r1 system and run under the
> PASE environment.
>
> OK so far...  I point my browser to
> http://aixpdslib.seas.ucla.edu/misc/sambanew.html and grab the 4.3 binary.
> FTP that sucker to the IFS and gunzip and untar it,  I think that can be
> done in one step but as I was unsure of the syntax I did it in two.(didn't
> want all kind of crud running around in the wrong dirs).
>
> The toughest part, as I know very little about unix (just enough to be
> dangerous), is to figure out the path stuff and the smb.conf file  That
> thing is a monster.
>
> The most amazing part is that the aix binaries are running, unchanged.  I
> can NBTSTAT from my win2K system and see that it is responding.
> Still can't get the shares to work.  I think it is userid/password
related.
> I'll have to keep digging.
>
>
> -------------------------
>  Bryan Dietz
> 3X Corporation
>
> =====================================
>
> Perhaps an AS/400 port of Samba would be the go?  I know it would suffer
in
> performance being implemented above the MI but surely it couldn't be any
> slower than NetServer itself?  And if it supported any SMB client then
that
> may mitigate the performance aspect.  Who's interested?
>
> Regards,
> Simon Coulter.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>





As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.