"Bryan J. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or are you going to continue to dodge those _technical_ questions, > and leave your comments at the "meta-data" level of "easier to > support just 1 thing"?
And if I wanted to be _purely_ argumentative, I could have say ... "Great! Just 1 network file service. AFS works for _both_!" [ I'm sure I'd get some kudos at least from Matt B. @-p ] But _instead_, since Samba is the driver for Exam 302. I recognize and _appreciate_ that, *NOT* dismissing Samba (which you have summarily for NFS, and would probably for AFS I assume ;-). I merely stated that we must include essential NFS services as we're not just testing on compatibility for, with and to Windows clients. Let alone how and why would we do a LDAP exam if the Samba exam only covers integration with ADS? @-p And in that regard, I further said we should _limit_ our discussion of NFS to those "advanced Samba 3.0 features" in authentication and mapping to where NFSv4 is also used. E.g., IDMAP because most Samba ADS or LDAP integration uses it as well. I mean, even Matt B. quickly pointed out is _not_ the only option for NFSv4. But even I'm trying to establish the "basic limits" of where any NFS coverage should end. Why do *I* get beat up for trying to "help maintain focus and limits"? Why does the whole open source world have to be about "versus" in projects just like they were "products" in the commercial world were people show blind loyalty? [ And don't get me started on distro v. distro pissing. ;-] -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
