On Tue, May 17, 2005 11:25 am, Jim Cheetham said: > Steve Holdoway wrote: >>> Samba working with Unix Extensions on is currently 'the right thing' - >>> >> how is that better than nfs? > > Are you asking from a perspective of "I already believe NFS to be 'the > right thing', and I wish to see why you disagree" or from "This is a > general-purpose list and I wish to encourage an illuminating discussion > to assist people who do not have enough expertise to choose for > themselves"? > > I've no interest in debating technical-level NFS vs Samba, because I > don't know NFS in sufficient detail. Many of the problems of one are > present in the other, and I expect each has different critical-failure > modes. > > From a general-purpose level, I'd say that many users already have/want > Samba, so that they can talk to windows PCs easily. So they should feel > free to use Samba for unix to unix conversations too :-) The extended > functionality in Samba these days understands the concepts of > permissions and ownership in a way that Windows does not (and therefore > was not originally present in SMB) > > -jim > I'm asking from an 'nfs was written to share stuff between like boxes', and 'smb was written to publish resources on windows based systems because the native NT servers were too flakey to do it at the time' perspective.
So to answer 1 - 'I expected the answer nfs but someone who does it for a living has offered an alternative, so I would be interested in their perspective', and 2 - "Yes, please, as I've never done it before!" Cheers, Steve -- Windows: Where do you want to go today? MacOS: Where do you want to be tomorrow? Linux: Are you coming or what?
