| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
At 20.08.01 22:53 , you wrote: > > >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. I've actually tested samba on cygwin/NT once, with partially success. It compiled almost 'out of the box'. Some / all of NT's native networking services had to be disabled to make it work:-( Some major synchronization problems with samba's user database made me give up. Some day cygwin may run samba 'out of the box', but not no. Not without porting... Gunnar -- 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/
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |