Is there no Samba for Net-BSD? What's the issue with that?

I read this list primarily because of OSX.

As a long time Mac user,  OSX has forced me to look at UNIX and how to 
get the most from older Mac hardware in a unix environment.

I also run Mac OSX server on a powermac 8500/604 120Mhz, with an extra 
ethernet card and 256 Meg of ram. It supports six services for me 
files:PC(SMB) and Mac,Mail,DNS,Web,FTP,printer que (for PC and Mac).

I love the fact the this list is so knowledgeable, and I hope that 
talking about OSX (in a NetBSD context) is OK.

I realize there is a 68k in the name of the list,   but personally I see 
Samba as a general UNIX/Linux issue.

Thanks,
Marty





On Monday, November 19, 2001, at 04:07 PM, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 05:54:21PM -0500, Kadari Mayson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Sorry if this comes off as abrasive, but you are COMPLETELY missing
> the point here. This is the port-mac68k mailing list. Many people
> must support Macintosh models that don't have a PowerPC, much less a
> G3. For these people, using MacOS X, much less some specific version
> of it, is completely impossible. "Use Samba" is a (monetarily)
> losing suggestion for these people even if there's a free MacOS
> 8/9 client involved: they still have to maintain software on every
> client instead of just on the server and, yes, that really does cost
> real money.
>
>> 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.
>
> ... and this bit is just ludicrously self-indulgent. What about this
> thread gave you to believe that anyone recommending it had not used
> Netatalk before?
>
> Fwiw, I found Netatalk (before any ASUN version existed) on an i386
> (literally) machine running Debian Linux (this is all about four
> years ago) to be significantly faster when accessing it from a Mac
> Quadra than when accessing a similarly-sized shared partition living
> on a PowerMac 6100/66 running Mac OS 7.5ish.
>
> I don't think I've ever actually suggested that Netatalk should
> magically make the filename-length problem go away. I've been
> suggesting all along just that it make it easier for the
> administrator to deal with. I think plenty of people would find
> Netatalk totally sufficient for their needs, and this small addition
> would make them much happier.
>
>> Apple is attempting to phase out AFP anyway, but they have not 
>> introduced a
>> successor.
>
> Sure they have, and it's called NFS. That's why they're shipping
> Mac OS X with decent NFS support these days and gradually doing
> backwards support only for AppleTalkIP stuff. They (very sanely)
> want to get rid of the ridiculously talky AppleTalk networking.
>
> But what Apple is or isn't supporting today is totally not the
> point. There are plenty of people subscribed to this list specifically
> because they have macs that Apple doesn't care about any more and
> they would rather pull some of those up as real Unix servers than
> drop the money on Apple's shiny new boxes. To turn a cold shoulder
> to them is ridiculous, cruel, and wholly inappropriate.
>
> --
>        ~ g r @ eclipsed.net
>