eric.dunbar at gmail.com
Tue Jun 21 17:09:46 UTC 2005
On 6/21/05, Senectus . <senectus at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/05, Chanchao <custom at freenet.de> wrote:
> > It shouldn't be THAT much harder to share folders in Ubuntu compared
> > with Apple/Windows OS's, should it? Samba does a great job of making
> > something that's basic to the end user seems hopelessly complicated.
> > (I know it IS hopelessly complicated but the end user should be
> > shielded from that)
> I've been thinking about this.. I reckon it's something that should be
> looked at much further down the track..
> At the moment Ubuntu is focused on being a desktop OS more than a
> Server OS.. For the time being (at least until past "Breezy") I reckon
> we should stick with that!
I think Apple's OS X shows that these "basic" servers are an integral
part of a Unix desktop.
Your basic user install of OS X has in-built support for serving up a
user's home directory through AppleTalk (Apple's own networking
protocol), SAMBA (or is it nfs?) and ftp, and for serving up (through
Apache 1.3.x) the /Users/username/Sites directory as
www.myURL.tld/~username or myIP/~username.
The control offered by OS X doesn't suit my needs anymore but for most
people, basic SAMBA, ftp and httpd with a simple on-off switch
(default is OFF) that is integrated with a firewall that turns on when
services are activated should suffice (excuse the run-on sentence ;-).
To date I've been disappointed with Linux's server control apps, but,
I don't have to deal with them since my needs aren't satisfied by
More information about the ubuntu-users