In a message dated: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:55:37 EST
Cole Tuininga said:
>Why is this, if you don't mind me asking?
>
>Personally, I'd much sooner run SMB than NFS - even in an all linux
>environment.
SMB is inherently buggy and incredibly slow. NFS, though buggy, is a
much more stable protocol. Additionally, SMB is non-routable, where
as NFS just rides on top of IP. SMB is actually at the same level as
IP, but it's non-routable. You can play some tricks with Windows
networking, but that's really placing WINS over IP, not SMB.
If you really want the low-down on how ugly SMB is, get a copy of
John Blair's book, "Samba: Integrating Windows with Unix". It's the
original Samba book, however, he spends something like 45-50 pages in
the books explaining Windows Networking. By the time you're done
with that chapter, you'll know more about SMB and Windows Networking
than an MCSE :)
>I like the idea of not having portmap running. 8)
Portmapper is a minor concession to trade for things like speed,
reliability and security :)
Keep in mind, that that SMB uses *user* based authentication. That
authentication is done against a *Windows* password, not a Unix
password. You think portmatpper is a security hole? Try having all
your network passwords based on Microsoft's "Industrial Strength
Password Encryption Algorithm" :)
--
Seeya,
Paul
----
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
