Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
Message-ID: <037801c129ba$36e3a8f0$0d76aec7@D4LHBR01>
From: "Michael F. March" <march@indirect.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
References: <20010820154601.B1186@redhat.com> <3B816B6E.9070107@ece.gatech.edu> <033501c129b4$ef718190$0d76aec7@D4LHBR01> <20010820162521.A4064@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Samba for Cygwin
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:53:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> >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/