Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: obdev.at

Stories and comments across the archive that link to obdev.at.

Comments · 153

  1. Re:It's too expensive for what it does by jacrawf · · Score: 1 · on Review of the Audiotron Stereo MP3 Component
    (well the macs can't, but I'm working on setting up some sort of mac compatible solution alongside samba)
    You can use Netatalk to get sharing working with the Macs as well, but there is something of a problem. Most of the versions of Netatalk that I have used will not share files with names that are too long. (I have a bunch of MP3s with very descriptive file names and the limit on file name sizes in MacOS 9 is something around 31 characters or so.) They simply don't show up in the Finder.

    If you are using MacOS 9, I really highly recommend you pick up a copy of DAVE and bag setting up Netatalk. DAVE works marvellously for me (and if you ever need to burn a CD especially for your Mac on a *nix box, mkisofs understands the files DAVE uses to keep the extra metadata and resource forks that MacOS's HFS has -- quite convenient for burning CDs full of Mac software), does not have a problem with long file names, and I highly recommend it.

    If you are an OS X user, either pick up a copy of Sharity if you are stuck with Mac OS X 10.0.4, or just use MacOS X 10.1 which has an included SMB client. MacOS X can also mount NFS exports, so there is always that alternative as well. I haven't had tremendous luck with Sharity, though.

  2. Re:Samba for Mac OS X by _fuzz_ · · Score: 1 · on ZDNet Reviews Samba 2.2

    A GUI for configuring the server is definitely important, but I think what is equally important is a GUI for the client side of things (i.e. Finder integration). Heck, Finder even supports WebDAV, you'd think they could hack SMB support into it too. One project I've seen, but haven't tried is Sharity, wich I think is based somewhat on Samba. Basically, it does the Finder integration. It's got some weird licensing, though.
    --

  3. ... And SSL ought not to need be in the browser by Christopher+B.+Brown · · Score: 2 · on 21 Linux Web Browsers?
    I find it somewhat appalling that this is still an issue.

    SSL management should get pushed out to an SSL proxy, so that there would be common support for SSL for all browsers, whether they natively "do SSL" or not.

    The point here is that by doing a proxy right, once, this eliminates the need to tightly integrate crypto into all of the web browsers.