One thing I forgot to mention when Greig asked me to talk about Samba in general, is that I am completely and utterly sick of samba playing catchup. Samba will always chase behind Microsoft's implementation. If Samba ever fully catches up and can play the AD game perfectly, and has zero problems, MS only has to move to another structure. It's a futile game to play at. Current Samba implementations fall foul of many of the problems Greig talked about. It's almost the same, but it is subtly different in many ways, and this causes problems. There aren't really any decent unified configuration systems yet, so running an LDAP backed samba system which *works* is not a trivial task to set up. The entire domain model of samba is tedious to work with unless you're running MS gear. That said, it's the only option right now. There are ways around it which have been implemented on large university networks, however support is tedious. I'm looking at using a custom GINA (the login part of windows) which will auth via Kerberos or LDAP, and having an AFS based network (Andrew File System), a distributed file system). It's not all doom and gloom, I guess. I get fairly frustrated with the attitude that seems to dominate overall major linux development which says that we have to mimic Windows. GNOME and KDE have done this, Samba is perpetually doing this. If Linux actually *is* better than Windows, why do we have to mimic them? We could at least be mimicing Mac OS X. I'd like that. Daniel