[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 11:34, Tom Potts wrote: > > but they wont need to use samba - they already have the software - its > written in C or C++ and talks TCP/IP so it wont take five minutes to > convert to linux and it wont need the GPL. > You really think it would be easy to take a huge chunk of code from Windows, bearing it mind it's been there evolving since Windows 3.11, and transplant it into Linux? No way. That would almost certainly take longer than writing a new implementation from scratch. > > This is another case of the naive following the desperate. I've not seen > Samba offer anything that wasn't already available in *Nix other that the > ability to talk to windows. OK its easier to use Samba than set your linux > systems up properly - it takes a second to connect to a Windows share from > Linux using SMB and several minutes to do the same with NFS but if your > going to use bodges like that it will come back and haunt you*. NFS has zero security and authentication. Samba can have very complex security policies. It also makes it easy to share and access resources over a network. People need to get over their aversion to anything associated with Microsoft - just because Microsoft use the SMB protocol (they didn't even write it) does not mean that it isn't a perfectly good protocol. Regards, David. -- David Johnson www.david-web.co.uk -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html