On Tuesday 25 March 2003 09:47, Mike Beattie wrote: > It's not a perfect analogy, but seriously, why use a Windows file sharing > protocol, when not using windows?
If it's (samba) already set up and going, it (to paraphrase someone famous) wins heavily on points for being available now. If I have samba set up for talking to other windows boxen, and then I want to copy files between unix boxen... I know I *should* do things the proper way, but the temptation is there not to be bothered working out how to set up NFS and just copy the damn files with samba, cos you can do it immediately. Not saying this is a good thing, just saying I think this is why some people use samba between two unix machines instead of NFS - simple convienence. Of course, nowdays I use ssh / sftp / scp etc (ie. the ssh tools). scp rocks - works just like regular 'cp', except you can put "host:" in front of a filename (eg. "[EMAIL PROTECTED] scp /home/gareth/file1 kenobi:/home/gareth/file1.backup") and if you have your auth keys set up properly (only takes a couple minutes) on the two machines, it won't even ask you for a password. Plus, with newer versions of KDE, for those graphically inclined you can use (as I think was mentioned on list a while ago) "fish://host" for any host running ssh, log in, and then just drag and drop stuff to/from the remote machine, like it's a local directory. Very cool. Oh, and did I mention it's secure? ;-) (perhaps more than we can say for NFS? ;-) Cheers, Gareth
