Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/08/20/16:54:42
> >I happen to prefer the administration of Samba to traditional NT/2k
> >shares. That is also why I use Apache under Win2K instead of
> >IIS.
>
> In this case, I'd just have to say "Get over it". It sounds like an
> a lot of work to port a file service layer on top of an *existing*
> completely operational layer. Administration of shares on Windows is
> hardly complicated.
>
> The Windows OS doesn't implicitly support the http protocol. So, you
> can choose whatever web server you want. Windows does implicitly
> support the SMB protocol. It invented the SMB protocol. In this case
> porting a UNIX application to Windows to support something that existed
> on Windows first doesn't make much sense to me.
>
> I can just see the "Why is Samba so slow on Cygwin?" posts now.
Even if no one ever used SAMBA for Cygwin, the port would not
be in vain. I am certain that a SAMBA port would result in a
more hardier Cygwin POSIX environment for future ports of other
apps that might experience the same porting issues if SAMBA was
not ported first.
As for administration issue, I agree that basic 'shares' adminning
under Windows is easy however if you send a lot of your time and effort
in the Cygwin environment, getting the native SMB stuff to match
with your Cygwin environment is a pain. I, for one, look forward to a
SAMBA port.
> >> That's like asking to port WINE to Cygwin (or port cygwin to WINE).
> >> It's a gee-whiz proof-of-concept, but has no practical value.
> >
> >I believe there is a WINE port to Cygwin. Many of the Wine developers
> >wanted to be able to develope Wine under Windows.
>
> It's hard to understand how this could work, unless they're also using
> the Cygwin XFree86 server.
Yes they are.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -