Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/08/20/19:55:21
On 20 Aug 2001 17:30:42 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Michael F. March wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Sure, but why not expend that effort on a port that is USEFUL. You'll
> still end up "hardening" Cygwin's POSIX stuff, and in the end you'll
> have a NEW ability, not a (slower) rehash of an EXISTING ability.
> (worse, that slower rehash will claim to support certain features that
> it really isn't capable of doing: "samba" implies a certain featureset,
> but not all of those will be possible on cygwin. The intersection of
> the featureset of cygwin-samba and real-samba will change depending on
> (Win95 / Win98 / WinMe / WinNT / Win2K / WinXP ) + ( FAT / FAT32 /
> NTFS-NT4 / NTFS-NT5 ) + CYGWIN=(ntea / ntsec / smbntsec)
There is one valid use for at least part of SAMBA on cygwin - NTLMSSP
integration for squid. It is probably possible with pure win32 calls,
but as most/all of them are undocumented it would be a hard call. BTW:
This isn't hyopthetical, the current ntlmssp helper for squid-ntlm
(which uses a samba library) runs fine on win95 and up, as long as there
is a DC on the net somewhere for it to talk to.
> > I, for one, look forward to a
> > SAMBA port.
>
>
> I do not. Join me in my nightmare:
>
...
> Or this:
>
> "I just set up samba 2.2 as a PDC on my WinMe machine. It doesn't work"
This is a valid goal actually :}.
>
> My solution for these and other problems: procmail any message
> containing samba and cygwin to the bitbucket.
lol.
Rob
--
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 -