On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:25, Jim Cheetham wrote: > 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.
I've read some criticisms - by the authors of the 4.4BSD book for a start - of NFS and its security that'd make me look for alternatives if I was ever put in charge of a site that required such a site-wide file system. OpenAFS - the Andrew File System - is one such alternative; there's another that 's on the tip of my tongue but I can't think of it at the moment. OpenAFS is one of IBM's donations to the F/LOSS world, and as such I expect its security is better than NFS's. > > 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 Wesley Parish -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
