Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3B817D25.4020507@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:12:05 -0400 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010713 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Jensen CC: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Subject: Re: Samba for Cygwin References: <20010820154601 DOT B1186 AT redhat DOT com> <3B816B6E DOT 9070107 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010820164115 DOT A1741 AT redhat DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 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 -- 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/