Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samba: Less Important Because Windows Is Less Important

Posted by Unknown on from the liberating-windows-users dept.

Jeremy Allison - Sam writes "Interview Bruce Byfield did with me after the Samba 4.0 release. Discusses interactions with Microsoft, the future of the code and project, and many other things."

1 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. What he really means... by FyberOptic · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...is that Samba has been such a sub-par version of the protocols for years that businesses still primarily refuse to use it in place of dedicated and reliably-functioning Windows servers. That's the only reason Samba is less important.

    Seriously, you've been developing it for 20+ years and you still haven't implemented a proper mailslot interface?

    I don't care what anyone says, there is no comparable product offering the same level of management and privilege control as what Microsoft offers. I can hear the open-source crowd freaking out already, but it doesn't change that fact. This is why Windows servers predominantly manage Windows clients. Linux can stick to the databases and web serving, where the file/permissions system is far less important.

    I'm not even a Windows Server fan, but prefer to configure one of those any day than the nightmare of cryptic config files in the alternative.