Good on line "books" on learning to use AD 2003?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Dec 8, 2009.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Is there such a thing?

    I have some old 2000 books but want to study up a bit on the newer
    2003 AD.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Dec 8, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. thingy

    Carnations Guest

    Would reading the documentation on Samba 4 be of any assistance? When released it's supposed to
    be a drop-in replacement for Microsoft's Active Directory.
     
    Carnations, Dec 8, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. thingy

    Enkidu Guest

    That's hilarious! What the 'real world' situation is (as opposed to the
    weird twisted Lennier view of the situation) is described in this quote
    - "In short, you can join a WinNT, Win2000, WinXP or Win2003 member
    server to a Samba4 domain, and it will behave much as it does in AD,
    including Kerberos domain logins where applicable".

    http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4

    The aim of the Samba 4 project is not to "provide a drop-in replacement
    for Active Directory". It is "to implement an Active Directory
    compatible Domain Controller".

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Dec 8, 2009
    #3
  4. thingy

    AD. Guest

    Hehe - Would you also recommend studying MS Office by reading the Open
    Office docs?
     
    AD., Dec 8, 2009
    #4
  5. thingy

    AD. Guest

    How in-depth do you want?

    From somewhat hazy memory, superficially there wasn't a huge
    difference. The UIs didn't change a whole lot, although they added
    better group policy inspection stuff.

    The differences were mainly around making things smoother and more
    flexible by removing some limitations 2000 had - eg around renaming
    and moving previously fixed things like domains.

    If you are after *nix interoperability stuff, 2003 R2 bundled the NIS
    LDAP schema extensions, so you didn't have to download SFU any more.
    And the schema changed to be RFC2307 compliant rather than the non
    standard SFU one.

    But no, I don't know of any good online books sorry :)
     
    AD., Dec 8, 2009
    #5
  6. thingy

    Squiggle Guest

    thingy threw some characters down the intarwebs:
    Anything wrong with starting at "Core Concepts of Active Directory
    Domain Services"
    @ <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa772157(VS.85).aspx> ?
     
    Squiggle, Dec 8, 2009
    #6
  7. thingy

    Carnations Guest

    No.

    I was only thinking about the conceptual stuff should should be completely identical as both are
    implementing the identical protocols.
     
    Carnations, Dec 8, 2009
    #7
  8. thingy

    Carnations Guest

    Yes - exactly so - active-directory compatible. That means a DC doing the identical stuff - performing
    identically.
     
    Carnations, Dec 8, 2009
    #8
  9. thingy

    Enkidu Guest

    I'm not going to get drawn into a long-running Lennier scrambled ramble.
    Suffice it to say you are wrong (as always). Implementing an AD
    compatible DC is a long way from providing a full AD replacement
    capability.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Dec 8, 2009
    #9
  10. thingy

    AD. Guest

    Hahaha - nice one!
     
    AD., Dec 8, 2009
    #10
  11. In message <d20f1986-
    So Marvel have a sequel to their “2000 AD†comics, then?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 8, 2009
    #11
  12. thingy

    John Little Guest

    Wash your mouth out, the galaxy's greatest comic does not come from
    Marvel. I'd watch out for Rigellian hotshots.
     
    John Little, Dec 9, 2009
    #12
  13. thingy

    thingy Guest

    2000AD isnt Marvel....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Dec 9, 2009
    #13
  14. thingy

    Carnations Guest

    If you can get non-Microsoft domain controllers controlling an Active Directory domain in a manner that
    is fully compatible in all respects including trust relationships with Microsoft's own implementation of
    Active Directory how is that not providing a full AD replacement capability?

    I'm curious to know why you think that should not be the case given the stated aims of the Samba
    project:

    http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4/FAQ


    Cheers
     
    Carnations, Dec 10, 2009
    #14
  15. thingy

    Biggles Guest

    I feel sorry for you cliff ...


    BiggleZZZ
     
    Biggles, Dec 10, 2009
    #15
  16. thingy

    EMB Guest

    An aim and the reality are normally two totally different things.
     
    EMB, Dec 10, 2009
    #16
  17. thingy

    Carnations Guest

    I would suggest that an aim, and the PRESENT reality may be two different things.

    It appears to me that the Samba project is actively working on Samba 4, and that they have a published
    list of very specific things they need to accomplish. That says to me that they fully know their roadmap
    and fully intend to achieve it.

    Also, they have access to all of Microsoft's documentation and access to the technical team within
    Microsoft that is maintaining AD (altho' they are doing clean-room development still).
     
    Carnations, Dec 10, 2009
    #17
  18. In message <82888087-83d5-453b-
    Yeah, why not? Stick to the features that work with both, and you can’t go
    wrong. :)
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 12, 2009
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.