On 01/10/13 12:34, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 11:27 +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
[SNIP]
Wrong, the first windows server that had 'uidNumber' as standard was
2003R2 .
That is what I said. However there where lots of 2003 and even 2000
servers that had uidNumbers in their schema. What you cannot do is
conclude because your AD has a uidNumber field that it is operating at
2003R2 or later. That is fundamentally flawed logic.
So, if it was first installed 'de-facto' in 2003R2 and Samba 4 has it as
standard, then samba4 should be 'level 2003R2', but then again it seems
to be using the 2008 schema (at least that is the earliest I can find in
/usr/local/samba/share/setup/
Like I said flawed logic, because plenty of 2003 and 2000 servers had
uidNumbers in their schema. What is important is not what the schema is,
but what on the wire protocol version that your AD controller is
compatible with.
I presume that if Samba4 is reporting it is a 2003 server it is because
there was some extension of the AD controller protocol by Microsoft in
2003R2 that Samba4 does not support.
JAB.
Here we go again, your logic is flawed, just because you personally know
of lots of windows 2003 & 2000 servers that have 'uidNumbers' does not
mean Samba 4 is level 2003.
The 'uidNumber' did not become a fixed part of the windows schema until
2003R2, before that it had to be added, but 'uidNumber' is a fixture of
Samba 4 therefore Samba4 cannot be level 2003
Also, if Samba 4 is level 2003, why does it ship with the 2008 & 2008R2
schemas and no sign of the 2003 schema?
Rowland
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
