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: <4.2.2.20010820230956.00b97e90@mail.online.no>
X-Sender: hardon AT mail DOT online DOT no
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:34:33 +0200
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Gunnar Andre Dalsnes <hardon AT online DOT no>
Subject: Re: Samba for Cygwin
Cc: "Michael F. March" <march AT indirect DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <037801c129ba$36e3a8f0$0d76aec7@D4LHBR01>
References: <20010820154601 DOT B1186 AT redhat DOT com>
 <3B816B6E DOT 9070107 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
 <033501c129b4$ef718190$0d76aec7 AT D4LHBR01>
 <20010820162521 DOT A4064 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 20.08.01 22:53 , you 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.

I've actually tested samba on cygwin/NT once, with partially success.
It compiled almost 'out of the box'.
Some / all of NT's native networking services had to be disabled to make it work:-(
Some major synchronization problems with samba's user database made me give up.
Some day cygwin may run samba 'out of the box', but not no.
Not without porting...

Gunnar


--
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/