On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Patrick Salmon <[email protected]> wrote: > Most remarkable is use the 'stable' in the same sentence as 'Samba'. Have > long liked and used it - no question, it's a badly needed complement to many > networks, but in the 15 yrs since I first kicked its tires, 'stable' would > be the one word that pretty much never applies.
It's an interesting question. As has been noted, Microsoft's own docs on SMB were often incomplete or outright wrong. So the Samba people would do what Microsoft said to do, and then that wouldn't work with Windows. It became apparent that Microsoft didn't really understand the Windows SMB code, either. Does that make Samba the unstable element, or Windows? One generally has to put the onus on Samba, since Samba's goal is to be compatible with Windows. Nobody really cares why the file server doesn't work, they just want it to work. So Samba can be "stable", in the sense of the developers are confident in their code, but *not* be "stable", in the sense of actually achieving the goal of working with Windows. "Are you still beating your wife?" ;-) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
