[ILUG] Is a fqdn really necessary?

[Frank Murphy]

Conor Wynne wrote:

> Not necessary, but desirable.
> If you have no name resolution (DNS/WINS for samba/windows), then you will
> have an inneficient LAN. There will be loads of broadcasts polluting your
> network and strange delays when accessing shares.

Does this mean I should set samba up as a wins server?, given the 
Netgear dg834
> 
> If you maintain hosts files on all the boxes, then you have no need for
> DNS with samba.
> 
> 
>>I'm asking because, when I install Linux & set up as "fqdn",
>>I can't connect to it from winxp,
>>if I use "server" during setup I can?

 > Dont understand your statement Frank.

If I install linux (fc3) fresh and during the network part go manual 
hostname server.frank.com, no matter what I do I can't connect from XP box.

If I install linux (fc3) fresh and during the network part go manual 
hostname: server, I can connect from XP,
using same smb.conf etc..

(Both boxes at the moment connect to  the web & each other through 
Netgear DG843 setup as dhcp server. Don't believe it supplies hostnames, 
just ip)

I don't wan't to add any more boxes till full setup of these two.


Frank
> 




-- 
http://www.frankly3d.com