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: <3B818182.9050106@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:30:42 -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: "Michael F. March" CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Samba for Cygwin References: <20010820154601 DOT B1186 AT redhat DOT com> <3B816B6E DOT 9070107 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <033501c129b4$ef718190$0d76aec7 AT D4LHBR01> <20010820162521 DOT A4064 AT redhat DOT com> <037801c129ba$36e3a8f0$0d76aec7 AT D4LHBR01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael F. March 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. 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) > I, for one, look forward to a > SAMBA port. I do not. Join me in my nightmare: "I just set up samba under cgywin on my Win95 machine. It doesn't work. Why not?" (c.f. recent on-list discussion of "changing user name" on win9x). Or this: "I just set up samba 2.2 as a PDC on my WinMe machine. It doesn't work" Or "I can't get samba to run on my WinXP machine. Of course, I can't get bash to run either, but that shouldn't affect samba, should it?" (since cygwin itself doesn't even work on XP yet...) My solution for these and other problems: procmail any message containing samba and cygwin to the bitbucket. --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/