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.
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 It was last used for NT 4.0, and was superseded by SMB1 in windows 2000, SMB2 in Windows 2008, and SMB3 in Windows 2012[0].
[0] - https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/josebda/2013/10/02/windo...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, for one, would be interested in a practical AD alternative.