Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
Jim Xochellis wrote: [ ... ] For some definitions of "transparent". If the client uses the AppleDouble format, that wraps the resource fork and works fine against a normal NFS server. Some Mac NFS implementations do that, some don't. Very interesting, thanks! I would like to try this solution. Can you give me more info, suggestions, links etc? I think the product was called "Hummingbird NFS", and it was targetted towards the classic MacOS. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
Hi Chuck, hi list, On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 07:59 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: Jim Xochellis wrote: Hi Chuck, hi list, Hi, Jim-- Chuck Swiger wrote: NFS is an entirely reasonable choice for filesharing against OS X; netatalk would be a comparitively better choice for MacOS 9 and previous versions. People who have laptops or other network roaming environments will probably prefer Samba. [How's that for providing a fair slant on what each protocol is well-suited for? :-)] > What about the resource fork of the mac files. Does NFS provide a transparent way to preserve the resource fork? For some definitions of "transparent". If the client uses the AppleDouble format, that wraps the resource fork and works fine against a normal NFS server. Some Mac NFS implementations do that, some don't. Very interesting, thanks! I would like to try this solution. Can you give me more info, suggestions, links etc? [...] TIA Jim Xochellis ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
Jim Xochellis wrote: Hi Chuck, hi list, Hi, Jim-- Chuck Swiger wrote: NFS is an entirely reasonable choice for filesharing against OS X; netatalk would be a comparitively better choice for MacOS 9 and previous versions. People who have laptops or other network roaming environments will probably prefer Samba. [How's that for providing a fair slant on what each protocol is well-suited for? :-)] > What about the resource fork of the mac files. Does NFS provide a transparent way to preserve the resource fork? For some definitions of "transparent". If the client uses the AppleDouble format, that wraps the resource fork and works fine against a normal NFS server. Some Mac NFS implementations do that, some don't. However, if you care about preserving resource forks, netatalk is probably going to be a better bet. Also, netatalk and Samba are both case-insensitive filesharing protocols, whereas NFS and Unix's FFS are case-sensitive; there's a potential impedence mismatch there as well, depending on what you are doing. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
Hi Chuck, hi list, Chuck Swiger wrote: Joel Rees wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:11:11PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ... ] >> I would think that NFS would be a better choice between two Unix >> systems than Samba. > > To which I might add that netatalk would seem to me to be a better > option than Samba if the only client is a Mac. > > But then I've never done netatalk on freeBSD. NFS is an entirely reasonable choice for filesharing against OS X; netatalk would be a comparitively better choice for MacOS 9 and previous versions. People who have laptops or other network roaming environments will probably prefer Samba. [How's that for providing a fair slant on what each protocol is well-suited for? :-)] What about the resource fork of the mac files. Does NFS provide a transparent way to preserve the resource fork? Best Regards Jim Xochellis ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
Joel Rees wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:11:11PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ... ] I would think that NFS would be a better choice between two Unix systems than Samba. To which I might add that netatalk would seem to me to be a better option than Samba if the only client is a Mac. But then I've never done netatalk on freeBSD. NFS is an entirely reasonable choice for filesharing against OS X; netatalk would be a comparitively better choice for MacOS 9 and previous versions. People who have laptops or other network roaming environments will probably prefer Samba. [How's that for providing a fair slant on what each protocol is well-suited for? :-)] -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:11:11PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > FreeBSD Question Answerer- > > First of all thank you for your help and time. I have a question about > >running a Samba server where the server is a FreeBSD machine and the client > >is a Macintosh ibook running max os X. ... And [EMAIL PROTECTED] commented, > I would think that NFS would be a better choice between two Unix > systems than Samba. To which I might add that netatalk would seem to me to be a better option than Samba if the only client is a Mac. But then I've never done netatalk on freeBSD. -- Joel Rees, programmer, Kansai Systems Group Altech Corporation (Alpsgiken), Osaka, Japan http://www.alpsgiken.co.jp ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-09 05:08]: > First of all thank you for your help and time. I have a question about > running a Samba server where the server is a FreeBSD machine and the client > is a Macintosh ibook running max os X. I can't help much except to say that there are known issues with Samba on OS X 10.1 and possibly early versions of 10.2. 10.2.5 and up should be fine, so just run 'Software Update' if you need to. Good luck. /loz. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
Bill Campbell wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:11:11PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FreeBSD Question Answerer- First of all thank you for your help and time. I have a question about running a Samba server where the server is a FreeBSD machine and the client is a Macintosh ibook running max os X. ... I would think that NFS would be a better choice between two Unix systems than Samba. Maybe. MacOS X has very well integrated Samba support into the Finder; Windows filesharing integration is/was a higher priority than NFS. NFS perhaps is easier to configure than Samba, though-- which might matter to the OP. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:11:11PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > FreeBSD Question Answerer- > First of all thank you for your help and time. I have a question about >running a Samba server where the server is a FreeBSD machine and the client >is a Macintosh ibook running max os X. ... I would think that NFS would be a better choice between two Unix systems than Samba. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ ``I don't make jokes, I just watch the Government and report the facts...'' Will Rogers ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Samba between Mac and BSD
FreeBSD Question Answerer- First of all thank you for your help and time. I have a question about running a Samba server where the server is a FreeBSD machine and the client is a Macintosh ibook running max os X. The client would have a wireless PC card connection that runs through the same bridge as the server. Can the client and the server share files and devices with this setup? I was also wondering about how Samba was configured, is it through the /etc/exports file or is it done differently? Also is Samba in the ports packages tree? Also does Samba allow computers to share devices? Could i have a server with a DVD-ROM, and watch DVDs on a client? Also how are shared files stored on a Samba network, does the server store them all and they are all accessible to the clients, or does the machine where the file was made store it and it's accessible to all the clients? Also i was going to RAID together three SCSI harddrives in the server and also have one seperate IDE harddrive. The three SCSIs will store FreeBSD and be the storage for the Samba server, and the IDE will run DOS. Will the FreeBSD boot manager recognize DOS even though it is on another harddrive, or will i have to boot to it manually through the BIOS? Thanks and e-mail me back. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
