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 Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:25:12 -0400 From: Joshua Jensen To: Charles Wilson Cc: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Subject: Re: Samba for Cygwin Message-ID: <20010820172512.B1641@redhat.com> References: <20010820154601 DOT B1186 AT redhat DOT com> <3B816B6E DOT 9070107 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010820164115 DOT A1741 AT redhat DOT com> <3B817D25 DOT 4020507 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3B817D25.4020507@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 05:12:05PM -0400 This explanation I like. Very good points, well described... thank you for your time. Joshua On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 05:12:05PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > > > 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 -- Jřshľa Jensęn Red Hat Global Learning Services joshua AT redhat DOT com Instructor of RHCE, Linux Security, and Apache courses Work: 919 547 0012 x 298 Mobile: 919 454 9679 Fax: 919 806 3126 gpg: 1024D/421C5FFD 5D4F B950 04AA 6878 BE6C 967D ACD3 B7D4 421C 5FFD -- 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/