Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/08/20/17:42:00
This explanation I like. Very good points, well described... thank you
for your time.
Joshua
On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 05:12:05PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> > Samba is better at exporting, which more individualized settings (esp.
> > security related) availible per-share than Windows.
>
>
> except that cygwin's handling of those settings is limited by the
> filesystem -- often FAT -- that the local windows machine is operating
> on. Even NTFS, because of the weird way remote authentication is
> handled by CIFS, is problematic.
>
>
> > When I say "Samba" I don't mean smbfs... I just want the server and the
> > smbclient/smbprint/etc utils.
>
>
> >>Windows ALREADY can export and mount shares using SMB/CIFS. These
> >>filesharing tools are *builtin* to windows 9x/Me and NT/2k. Why run samba?
> >>
> >
> >>That's like asking to port WINE to Cygwin (or port cygwin to WINE).
> >>
> >
> > That's just it... it ISN'T like your analogy at all. WINE in Cygwin
> > would allow native windows apps (assuming WINE works ;-) ) to run in
> > Cygwin.
>
>
> Right. Like an SMB server. Sure, "yours" (samba) is different than
> "mine" (native windows) -- but both do the same job, basically. Samba
> may be (a) more intuitive -- to unixoids (b) more stable -- when run on
> linux (c) more secure -- when run on a real OS using a real filesystem,
> and (d) have more features -- when run on a real OS using a real filesystem.
>
> Samba-on-cygwin would have NONE of those features, except that unixheads
> wouldn't have to think as hard when trying to export file shares from a
> windows machine. After they spent several hours installing cygwin,
> samba, configuring /etc/passwd, etc. Until they got bit by (b), (c),
> and (d) above.
>
> My god, man -- my grandmother can export file shares on windows in under
> 30 seconds.
>
> If you're trying to do an enterprise-level SMB file sharing system then
> yes, there are advantages to samba. BUT those advantages can't be
> realized when the underlying OS is windows.
>
> Strip out those advantages and the enterprise-level ruggedness
> requirements -- since you can't really get'em on top of windows -- and
> all you're left with is "I want to simply share some files between a few
> computers in my small workgroup" -- in which case the native tools will
> do just fine.
>
> > Smbclient in Cygwin/Windows would provide something totally
> > different that is NOT availible in Windows: a command line interface to
> > SMB shares.
>
>
> From cygwin bash:
> $ cd //my-server/my-share
> $ ls
>
> Lookee! A command line interface.
>
> Oh, you mean an ability to *control* export behavior from the command
> line. Well, there are easier ways to do that, too -- that don't trip
> over re-implementing (at a slower speed) stuff that's already provided.
> Check out the 'net' command. As in 'net use' and 'net start'.
>
> > Samba *server* in Cygwin would allow something not
> > availible in Windows, very fine-grained, text-based,
> > intuitive-to-Unix-heads SMB-share configuration.
>
>
> IMNSHO, that is *precisely* why cygwin shouldn't be used for this task.
> If you're trying to manage a file server from the command line -- you
> are a power user and probably want to do things that JUST AREN'T
> POSSIBLE on windows. Windows is NOT a real OS; its concept of multiuser
> setups --even on NT-- is laughable. Remote access is a joke. It's
> amazing what Corinna's been able to do with openSSH, but still...
>
> So, in this "power-user" case, you shouldn't be using windows or cygwin
> at all. The drawbacks (speed, (non)security, (non)stability,
> (missing-but-expected-samba)features) FAR outweigh the benefits -- and
> can't be corrected at the cygwin level; only at the Redmond level. In
> this case, you should be using (Red Hat?) Linux as your file server.
>
>
> >>It's a gee-whiz proof-of-concept, but has no practical value.
> >>
> >
> > This is so wrong... many, many people would prefer to use Samba's server
> > on Windows, even over Window's ability to do some (but not all) of the
> > same things "natively".
> >
>
>
> Not once they realize the 200 percent or more (WAG) speed penalty you'd
> incur. Or the fact that security on Windows sux, despite Corinna's best
> efforts.
>
> And god help us once somebody tries to administer a samba server on a
> Win9x system. As a PDC. Now I'm going to have nightmares tonight.
>
> --Chuck
--
Jøshµa Jensên Red Hat Global Learning Services
joshua AT redhat DOT com Instructor of RHCE, Linux Security, and Apache courses
Work: 919 547 0012 x 298 Mobile: 919 454 9679 Fax: 919 806 3126
gpg: 1024D/421C5FFD 5D4F B950 04AA 6878 BE6C 967D ACD3 B7D4 421C 5FFD
--
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 -