Posted by
Hemos
on from the hey-now-get-yer-fileserver-on dept.
GTO-Crank writes "Here's the changlog with all the fixes, enhancments, and sorce code for the new release of Samba 2.2.5. Also worth taking a look is this tutorial called "Using an LDAP directory for Samba authentication", and this tutorial called "Using Samba as a primary domain controller"."
Re:IBM just has poor management.
by
Rick+the+Red
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If you're eliminating Microsoft products, why do you need samba?:)
I know you were being funny, but I've asked the same question: Why use Samba to serve Linux files to Windows PCs? Why not use NFS on the Windows PCs to reach those Linux files? Apparantly that's not a good idea. It's even in the NFS HowTo: "[the NFS How To] will also not cover PC-NFS, which is considered obsolete (users are encouraged to use Samba to share files with PC's)"
I would really appreciate any pointers to an open (GPL, BSD, whatever) NFS client for Windows, as I'd much rather go that route. Googlesearches turn up "free" demos of commercial software; the only open client I can find is PC-NFS, which is depricated (although I may try it anyway).
Can anyone please explain why NFS on Windows is such a "bad idea" -- or did Samba simply kill PC-NFS? Is it a better idea now, in the face of M$ patents threatening to kill Samba?
-- If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Samba on Linux vs. NFS on windows
by
Outland+Traveller
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The practical answer to your question is that almost every NFS implementation for windows is slow, buggy, and expensive while SAMBA for most unixes is fast, stable, and free.
On the technical side I would even offer the opinion that CIFS (SMB) is a better file sharing protocol than NFS. For one thing, it is MUCH easier to secure.
Unfortunately, for all its ease of use NFS is a pretty crappy way to share files, even under unix. All those people who whine constantly about replacing the perfectly reasonable X server should really be complaining about replacing NFS.
I have a feeling that all those whiners are single desktop users who never get the idea of network computing.
Slashdot Mirror
I would really appreciate any pointers to an open (GPL, BSD, whatever) NFS client for Windows, as I'd much rather go that route. Google searches turn up "free" demos of commercial software; the only open client I can find is PC-NFS, which is depricated (although I may try it anyway).
Can anyone please explain why NFS on Windows is such a "bad idea" -- or did Samba simply kill PC-NFS? Is it a better idea now, in the face of M$ patents threatening to kill Samba?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
The practical answer to your question is that almost every NFS implementation for windows is slow, buggy, and expensive while SAMBA for most unixes is fast, stable, and free.
On the technical side I would even offer the opinion that CIFS (SMB) is a better file sharing protocol than NFS. For one thing, it is MUCH easier to secure.
Unfortunately, for all its ease of use NFS is a pretty crappy way to share files, even under unix. All those people who whine constantly about replacing the perfectly reasonable X server should really be complaining about replacing NFS.
I have a feeling that all those whiners are single desktop users who never get the idea of network computing.