Linux or FreeBSD for Samba Server

[owensdj]

Not trying to start an OS war, but I'm looking to get into using either Linux(probably Ubuntu Server) or FreeBSD as a replacement for Windows Server 2003 as a Primary Domain Controller for single-server small business networks. Active Directory is overkill for them anyway, plus saving $400+ is significant.

Any thoughts on whether one would be a better choice than the other?

 

[Hyperblaze]

I'd say it's easier to do it with Linux, but you'll probably learn more using FreeBSD.
Completely diffferent way to install it.


example:

ubuntu: apt-get install samba
and then start the samba service in /etc/rc5.d


freebsd:

cd /usr/ports/net/samba3 ?
make install (wait for it to compile)
cd /etc
add samba_enable to rc.conf

go to /usr/local/etc/rc.d to start the service (and don't forget to edit the smb.conf file in /usr/local/etc

 

[Nothinman]

Linux will likely be much simpler to keep updated.

 

[nweaver]

Samba as a PDC is not as complete as an SBS solution would be. The new version of Samba adds lots of stuff, but for user administration, GPO, etc windows will still best SAMBA.

If all you are doing is serving up files, samba is a better solution (imho) but if you are throwing managment into the mix, I think windows is better.

 

[Brazen]

Yeah, I'm a huge proponent of open source software, but if you use Active Directory on your Windows Server 2003 domain controller then you will be sorely dissappointed (I'm really hoping Samba 4 will rectify this so I can replace the old Win 2000 dcs I admin). Plus, if they have already purchased 2003, then they aren't really "saving" money by switching since it doesn't cost anything to continue running what you have. The only issue would be if you are adding client machines and want to save on purchasing more CALs.