Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <8F23E55D511AD5119A6800D0B76FDDE1CA3069@cpex3.channelpoint.com>
From: Troy Noble <troy DOT noble AT channelpoint DOT com>
To: "'Michael F. March'" <march AT indirect DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: Samba for Cygwin
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:16:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 1.0 (http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/)

And don't forget that to run Samba you'd have to disable
your Microsoft Networking since it's already tying up the
port that Samba would want to grab to serve up its shares.

Unless you want to fall back on NETBEUI only, which I don't
even know if Samba will do.  And even if it did, NETBEUI
is not routable so you'd not be able to see things beyond
your own gateway router.

Probably not a wise thing to do.

Troy

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael F. March [mailto:march AT indirect DOT com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:54 PM
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Samba for Cygwin




> >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/

--
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/