On 2008-02-26, Wolfgang Draxinger <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> It's all on the Linux side, and I don't see a sane reason, why
> one should use a Microsoft propritary protocol to connect
> systems that are both not Microsoft.
Well, I use NFS.

But many organizations will already have a working
Samba server, so to install another sharing protocol to share with OS X
will seem silly compared to simply mounting the Samba share.
> NFS is another option, but getting Netatalk to work is IMHO
> simpler (and NFS is simple enough already). Also Netatalk allows
> to configure quite sophisticated authentication methods,
> something that NFS doesn't have.
True, though NFSv4 is supposed to. (I don't know any non-devel NFSv4
implementations for linux.) But not all networks need those
authentication methods, and if they do, and already have Samba working,
then they likely have everything they need.
>> And, as far as I know, netatalk is currently unmaintained,
>> though there may be more recent versions floating around
>> somewhere.
>
> If it works, why not use it?
If there's a bug, who will fix it? I know I couldn't. This is probably
the biggest drawback to netatalk. The other is, of course, that it only
supports AFP, and thus only OS X clients. If all you have is OS X
clients, great! If not, I'd prefer not to introduce yet another
filesharing protocol to my network. (As it is, IRL I support Samba and
NFS, so the minor advantages netatalk provides don't outweigh the extra
sysadmin effort and complexity it would introduce.)
--keith
--
kkeller-(E-Mail Removed)
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information