Larry, sounds like you got a Plan 9 up your sleeve? Are there any
peer-to-peer networks implemented on it yet??
On another note, it appears to me that Samba is indeed case-sensitive --
is something tricking me into believing that?
And finally, Seth spake of the difficulty in using NFS when Winbloze
boxen be involved;
are there no (worthy) NFS clients? I've used X-Win Pro (to provide X11
on win32), and I noticed it starts up an NFS share by default... I'll
play with it and see. I've never configured NFS, though.
Any tips?
Thanks,
Ben
larry a price wrote:
>Why don't we all just agree to use a persistent distributed object
>protocol that would transparently replicate public data to every host
>within the trust boundary, then we could have all sorts of intriguing
>stuff like, data that would become public only if an admin approved it,
>data objects that would only copy themselves to hosts where their owner
>had an account data that would refuse to copy itself to more than X hosts
>at a time. Of course entropy works in the direction of making everything
>either publicly available or hopelessly corrupted -- or both.
>hmmph sounds almost like a basic law of the universe there.
>
>http://www.efn.org/~laprice ( Community, Cooperation, Consensus
>http://www.opn.org ( Openness to serendipity, make mistakes
>http://www.efn.org/~laprice/poems ( but learn from them.(carpe fructus ludi)
>http://allie.office.efn.org/phpwiki/index.php?OregonPublicNetworking
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Linux Rocks ! wrote:
>
>>The biggest difference you will notice is performance! NFS performs much
>>better than windows file sharing too. It seems like its just part of your
>>filesystem... Pat might have some other options too.. I think he mentioned
>>afs? or some other network filesystem that sounded somehow more apealing than
>>nfs.
>>
>>Jamie
>>
>>On Sunday 11 November 2001 09:58, you wrote:
>>
>>>If you're exporting a filesystem from one *nix box to another *nix box
>>>(no Windows), which works better, NFS or Samba? It seems to me that
>>>NFS is the right choice, because it supports native Unix filesystem
>>>semantics.
>>>
>>>Specifically, NFS:
>>>
>>> understands that filenames are case-dependent
>>>
>>> understands symbolic links
>>>
>>> understands Unix permissions
>>>
>>> does file locking
>>>
>>> even understands that unlink(2) doesn't delete the file until
>>> the last open reference is closed.
>>>
>>>AFAIK, Samba doesn't do any of those right, because its primary job is
>>>to interface with Redmond Brain Damage. But I don't know much about
>>>Samba. Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
>>>
>>>Does Samba have any security advantage over NFS? Both send file
>>>contents over the net in cleartext, don't they? Both can be easily
>>>spoofed by someone who's sniffing packets, can't they?
>>>
>>>Jim Darrough recently asked me about sharing a file system between two
>>>Linux boxen, and I told him how to set it up using NFS. He said that
>>>Seth had recommended Samba. So I ask you guys, "Why Samba?"
>>>
>
>
