Windows' enterprise infrastructure relies heavily on CIFS. It isn't practical to operate a AD environment without it.
So the real question isn't even about CIFS, it is about AD and why that is so popular, and that boils down to maturity, vendor support, staff knowledge, and few alternatives (with Windows clients). Even Samba uses CIFS.
So if you have a working alternative to CIFS I'd like to read about it.
That caused my brain to skip for a moment. Since the entire point of Samba was to make it possible for *nix systems to interoperate with Windows systems there is no choice here. It is very possible that the people who work on Samba don't actually think that CIFS is a good idea.
Windows' enterprise infrastructure relies heavily on CIFS.
I'm pretty sure the number of enterprises deploying CIFS is basically 0. It was last used for NT 4.0, and was superseded by SMB1 in windows 2000, SMB2 in Windows 2008, and SMB3 in Windows 2012[0].
If I had used "SMB" instead of "CIFS" someone would have criticised that too. Cannot win. There's a pedant around every corner waiting to pounce on inane detail.
If you have a point to make that actually contributes to the conversation I'd happily answer that. I won't address, beyond here, these petty corrections.
There is no criticism in my statement that CIFS is not likely deployed in any enterprise. Indeed, I had hoped that it would be an interesting fact for anyone not intimately familiar with SMB's history.
Cannot win.
Seems like you can't lose with an argument that is "Windows AD requires SMB", which is almost tautologically true. I (obviously) agree with that since it's clearly true. So since there is no reasonable "conversation" to be had about that, then what is the harm in providing some CIFS/SMB history since we're talking about it.
True enough. It seems weird since SMB has been in continuous use from about 1990-1992 until today (24-26 years), but CIFS was only in use from about 1996 to 2000, so about 4 years of CIFS and 22 years of SMB, or about 15% of SMB's lifetime. Whereas SSL was in use from 1995 to 2014/2015, almost a full 20 years, and about 95% of SSL/TLS's lifetime. So it's obvious why SSL is still used during the transition, but less so why CIFS, which was just small blip in SMB's history, is used.
I have plenty of working alternatives to CIFS; listing them isn't my point with the original post. Since Samba is explicitly a CIFS implementation, originally named after SMB, I think it's pretty obvious that "even Samba" would use CIFS.
The point is this is not the first time there have been protocol-level SNAFUs with this specific approach. Nowadays maturity, vendor support, and Windows clients are all available from lots of places (I don't know what "staff knowledge" means other than "we're used to this tool").
It's always worthwhile to spend time evaluating your infrastructure and investigating if there might be other solutions that have arisen. It's not a Windows-only world any more, even at the enterprise level, and active directory is no longer the unassailable fortress of big ops that it once was.
It's just a reminder to keep an open mind, that's all.
> It's not a Windows-only world any more, even at the enterprise level, and active directory is no longer the unassailable fortress of big ops that it once was.
Then name the alternative.
Or tell us how to run AD without CIFS. If you cannot do either then your point about "evaluating your infrastructure" is a waste of time. You can evaluate it until you're blue in the face, but if there are no alternatives then there are no alternatives.
Heck just name a real alternative to GPO? A lot of people seem to think you can just slot in a Mac or Linux machine without any real grasp of how enterprise looks today. IBM are no doubt working on Linux deployment, but we're still likely years away, and Apple has focused more on iPads than Macs in the enterprise.
You don't want people using CIFS, but in 2016 that just isn't possible. It is mandatory for any AD environment and AD is more or less the only large scale enterprise solution. Therefore unless Microsoft redesign AD to use something other than CIFS, it isn't going away.
I'm not really interested in setting up a series of straw men for you to knock down. I'm not looking to get into an internet argument about minutiae.
Nowhere did I say "I don't want people using CIFS." I said it's worth deciding if CIFS is crucial to your business. This is always the case, for any technology, especially older, network-facing solutions that are basically propped up by lock-in and tradition. BIND is another great example of software that should provoke some introspection.
If you don't know anything or are unable to implement anything better than AD, then use AD. Meanwhile, AD is certainly not "the only large scale enterprise solution." I have hundreds of thousands of users and no AD, GPO, CIFS, or any other MSCE topic involved in my network. Please try not to take offense at this situation. I'm sorry that the mere suggestion of alternatives enrages you to this degree, but I'm not interested in this "prove it / no that won't work" meme.
> I'm not really interested in setting up a series of straw men for you to knock down. I'm not looking to get into an internet argument about minutiae.
This isn't minutiae. This is the core point of your entire post. You broadly criticise people for their continued use of CIFS and suggest people evaluate alternatives.
> I said it's worth deciding if CIFS is crucial to your business.
In enterprise, yes, it is crucial to businesses. There is no supported alternative.
> Meanwhile, AD is certainly not "the only large scale enterprise solution." I have hundreds of thousands of users and no AD, GPO, CIFS, or any other MSCE topic involved in my network.
Using what? I just asked you to tell us what the alternatives are. Even now you still haven't.
> I have plenty of working alternatives to CIFS
Can you please list those? I have been working on CIFS for over 5years and haven't come across any alternative for CIFS in AD environment. Are you thinking of LDAP?
So the real question isn't even about CIFS, it is about AD and why that is so popular, and that boils down to maturity, vendor support, staff knowledge, and few alternatives (with Windows clients). Even Samba uses CIFS.
So if you have a working alternative to CIFS I'd like to read about it.