Network

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

Tom H wrote:
>>> OS X can handle NFS but far less easily than Samba. The file sharing
>>> GUI defaults to AFP and you can choose SMB in the options - but not
>>> NFS.
> 
>>> I suspect that Ubuntu is mimicking OS X in its choice of Samba.
> 
>> The OpenSolaris guys have gui tools to make stuff easily shared over NFS
>> and SMB...although I suspect the tools might be tied to zfs filesystems
>> only.
> 
> I doubt that it is tied to ZFS. NFS is originally a Sun product so
> they (and I since I started out as a Solaris admin) have a soft spot
> for NFS, to say the least.
> 
> I helped some OS X admins 6-7 years ago set up NFS on their servers
> and we ended up using a GUI shareware because the only other way was
> editing some xml crap.
> 
> So a GUI is possible but 80%-90% of computers run Windows so it makes
> more sense to default to Samba.
> 

Well, defaulting makes it sound as if there is GUI support in Ubuntu for 
sharing via NFS. But that is not the case.


> 
>>>> Windows does not have builtin NFS support, I will give you that.
> 
>>>> So I fail to see why we cannot use a 'native' solution like NFS.
> 
>>> Windows 7 is said to support NFS but, yes, previous versions need
>>> extra software for NFS.
> 
>> Windows 7 supports NFS? Another reason for making sharing over NFS
>> easier I guess...
> 
> I spoke/typed too quickly. It might not support NFS as a server; all
> that Google points me to is "Client for NFS."
> 
> 
> I suspect that you are opposed to Samba because of its MS SMB origin
> but it is rather unfair to the Samba devs. They have put together an
> excellent software package that is 100% *nix and simply uses the same
> network protocol as Microsoft.
> 

Nothing to do with origin. When every os on the network, why use 
smb/cifs instead of nfs?