On 11/19/01 4:02 PM, "Michael G. Schabert" <mikeride@mac.com> wrote:

> And NetBSD has NFS built-in, while Samba must be installed separately
> (minor nit).

Ever try NFS and OS 8.x or 9.x?  Ugh.  Besides, installing the Samba package
is simple.  Download the Samba package and use pkg_add, configure with SWAT,
and voila.  Took me 10 minutes.

> 
>> 
>> Yes it is.  Mac OS X.1 comes with a built-in SMB client,
> 
> Which leaves the 20 million pre-G3 Macs out in the cold. As this is
> the port-mac68k list, I find it extremely likely that many of the
> users here cannot run OSX on all of their Macs (hence the original
> poster's mention of (1) OS8.6 and (1) OSX.
> 

Well, my point was that you would be installing SAMBA on the server side
(NetBSD box), so this is still relevant.  If you have OS X, then the upgrade
to 10.1 and 10.1.1 are free.

>>  and you can upgrade to a professional level client/server solution
>> for X.1 with DAVE 3.1.  There is also DAVE 3.1 for OS 9 as well as
>> DoubleTalk 1.x.
> 
> If you consider paying 150 bucks to be a solution, then you've got
> more $$$ than I do :-). Also, for the same $149 retail, you can get
> MacNFS, also from Thursby ;-).
> 
> Mike

MacNFS hasn't been updated in almost 2 years, DAVE was just updated last
week for OS X and OS 9.  Also, like I said, Sharity and SAMBA (for the CLI
client) are both free.  NFS is also notoriously difficult to use on OS X,
you have to be a NetInfo God to set it up properly (even with NFS Manager),
and if you are using 10.0.x, there is a bug in the kernel that doesn't let
you unmount shares at all.

Netatalk is HORRIBLY slow compared to SMB anyway, it's just a terribly
kludgy hack and completely unnecessary, after you use it, you'll understand.
It's just too bad SMB is a Microsoft protocol.  I've read several times that
Apple is attempting to phase out AFP anyway, but they have not introduced a
successor.  Until they do, I believe that SMB is the only viable option for
it's portability, speed, and ease of use.

./km