Commercial file-server software

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by sutil83, Sep 13, 2005.

  1. sutil83

    sutil83 Guest

    Hi all,

    I am looking for commercially available software to provide fileserver
    capabilities under Linux. I am aware of Samba but I cannot use
    open-source or free software. Basically I want to load Linux onto an
    Apple G5 and act as a file server to connected clients.

    I've done a lot of searching and everybody seems to point at Samba for
    this. I need a stand-alone (can't be part of an OS) product, that
    supports Linux on PowerPC, that can do this and is commercially
    avialable. Any suggestions or companies to look at?

    sutil83, Sep 13, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. I am looking for commercially available software to provide fileserver
    Have you considered purchasing AIX or Mac OS-X?

    Those seem likely to be more suitable for your purposes.
    Christopher Browne, Sep 13, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. So, please say again, WHY can't you use Samba?

    Just because it's Open Source?

    OK, WHY can't you use Open Source?
    Marco Dieckhoff, Sep 13, 2005
  4. sutil83

    sutil83 Guest

    This solution is for a client so I cannot use open-source/freeware.
    It's gotta come from a commercial vendor who can provide long-term
    support (I'm talking in the order of decades) so we can't have software
    from a developer who might disappear or kick the bucket relatively soon
    leaving us high and dry when we need support.

    In response to using other OS's, the choice of Linux on G5 platform was
    made by higher powers and is out of my hands.

    I've considered purchasing commercial support for Samba but haven't
    gotten word yet from the higher ups so I'd like to have alternatives.
    sutil83, Sep 13, 2005
  5. This makes no sense at all!

    Linux is open source, but you say you cannot use Samba because it is open source?

    And you also say you want to install Linux on an Apple G5 computer. So why would
    you not use the MacOS X that was already preinstalled on the Mac? Macs can act
    as a file server out of the box just like Linux........
    Phil Frisbie, Jr., Sep 13, 2005
  6. So, if Linus and the other developers who are developing Linux for
    20 years kick the bucket, you're kicked in the ass, right?

    Are 20 years of Linux development really so much more than 13 years
    of Samba development?

    Samba is one of the best developed software you can get for Linux.
    There are many software companies using samba - so even if all 30
    people from stop working at one time, there is most
    likely a company continuing their work -- which can only be done
    with Open Source software!

    On the other hand: Imagine you had installed your fileserver with
    Windows 2000 around 5 years ago.

    Windows 2000 is end-of-life. There will be no further updates.
    You now have to buy XP or best 2003, pay again for your licences,
    and upgrade your system -- which will most surely be a pain in the
    Marco Dieckhoff, Sep 13, 2005
  7. sutil83

    sutil83 Guest

    I realize this is a different situation than most but this is for a
    very UNIQUE solution. MacOS X is being wiped off the G5 box and a
    commercially distributed verison of Linux will be installed in its
    place. I can't go into detail but he G5 box will have other functions
    and roles aside from the file-server. I've entertained the idea of
    just using Samba, as it comes with most if not all distro's but would
    prefer an alternative involving a commerical product for
    support/security reasons. Like I said above I've also considered just
    purchasing the commercial support but don't know how well that will fly.
    sutil83, Sep 13, 2005
  8. This must be one of the most stupid things I have ever read. The Open
    Source model MAKES SURE you have continuous support for software. Do
    you really think there's only one person coding samba. I suggest you
    read some on and get your facts straight. There's
    actually loads of companies selling support on samba. Take a look at and I bet you'll find a solid
    company your pointy haired bosses can pay money to.

    What makes you (or your boss) think open source softwware suddenly
    will die one day? The user mass of software like samba is so huge so
    if the samba team stops developing samba somone else can, and will,
    just pick up the source code and continue. Hence _OPEN_ source. What
    happens if your proprietary supplier goes bankrupt and stops support
    for its software? Then you're pretty much screwed. Systems as widley
    used as samba has a much more solid guarantee for sticking around for
    decades than any proprietary solution you can find.

    Sadly I recognize your situation so well. The tie-people refuses to
    use software they cannot pay a lot of money for and are totally blind
    to the arguments made by their employees that were hired just because
    they had the knowledge they didn't have. The future of software should
    be (and I think it will be) "Free" in all aspects of the word.
    So you have been forced into using a free operating system, but are
    denied the choice of using free software? That contradicts itself
    doesn't it?
    Have you looked at NFS? It's still free, but at least you get to spend
    money buying clients for the windows clients, even though recent
    windows versions has support for nfs.
    Rolf Arne Schulze, Sep 13, 2005
  9. As others have noted, your request above makes no sense at all. (Unless you
    came here straight after reading Microsoft's get the "facts" website, in
    which case you should resign and give your clients the opportunity to hire
    someone with a functioning brain.).

    Open source solutions are more likely to be around after years than closed
    source soultions - if the company goes under, so does your support, and in
    most cases, continued product update availability.

    That aside, openafs (open sourced by IBM many years ago) is an excellent
    choice. Samba would have been insecure (what do you expect from something
    that has to work with windows ?) anyways.
    Madhusudan Singh, Sep 13, 2005
  10. sutil83

    sutil83 Guest

    Sadly, people seem to misunderstand the bind I'm in.

    This is not a typical solution for a typical client. I understand
    Linux is a free operating system so my inability to use an open-source
    application despite the fact that I'm using an open-source operating
    system is a point of confusion. Ignore the fact that the platform is
    Linux running on a G5 and focus on the fact that the app HAS TO BE
    COMPATIBLE with Linux running on a G5. Come to think of it this might
    add to more confusion but there's little else I can say. Ultimately we
    will be running a Linux-like operating system.

    Keep in mind that I am only searching for alternatives. If there are
    none then I will have to do some convincing and relay that Samba
    (possibly with commercial support) is the only choice. So please
    refrain from referring me to and the listed commercial
    support, I've looked there and realize that option.

    I've considered NFS and that might also be an option but for now,
    open-source is a serious negative, and not by my call but more of the
    client's (and in turn my employers). So trying to convince me of the
    benefits of open-source is futile. I KNOW the benefits and advocate it
    myself. But that does little to convince very large entities.

    For all I know all this might be overcome by events or decisions and
    the packaged software (NFS, Samba) will be used. All I'm doing is
    trying to find alternatives to consider. It's a mini trade study of
    sorts (that's taking much more time and effor than I planned for, this
    was supposed to be a side task).

    If this whole thing is too ambiguous and confusing (I apologize, I'm
    limited in what I can say), then say so and I'll continue my search
    elsewhere. Thanks.
    sutil83, Sep 13, 2005
  11. sutil83 wrote:

    Please do.

    You seem to be unable to give us *one* technical reason for why your
    solution cannot be open source. Beyond claiming that it is for a client,
    you seem to be unable to give any reasons at all.

    This is a technical newsgroup, and unless you have a technical reasons for
    doing what you do, you are unlikely to find the advice to be any use, or
    for that matter, even get any advice.

    Please consult some psychology or pure business (non-technical) newsgroups.
    We cannot help you with the bind you say you are in, if you are unable to
    cogently explain the nature of the bind.
    Madhusudan Singh, Sep 13, 2005
  12. sutil83

    sutil83 Guest

    I still fail to understand why you would need to know the reason why
    (and why is "it's for a client that doesn't want open-source" not good
    enough of a reason, considering that IS the reason?). I asked for a
    list of options and as a response I got a list of why I need those
    options. And I sure hope the reference to a psychology group wasn't a
    direct insult, I would expect more civility than that, but if you wish
    then prove me wrong.

    I realize its a technical newsgroup but it seemed to be a good start.
    I would've at least expected a response along the lines of "go to a
    different newsgroup, this doesn't belong here."

    What I do get from this whole thread is that nobody here knows of any
    commercial products that fit the bill. If they did, they would've
    listed them instead of asking questions. Oh well thanks anyway.
    sutil83, Sep 13, 2005
  13. I fail to see how "commercial" products are better for support/security
    reasons. How long does it take for critical security fixes to get released
    for proprietary products? Usually a lot longer than for open source stuff.
    If you pay someone to support Samba then you're effectively paying for a
    "commercial" product supported by a company with whom you'll have a
    contract, exactly the same as any other commercial product. Better still,
    if the company with whom you have support goes under, if you're using Samba
    then chances are there are several other viable options for support without
    having to change the underlying product.

    How is a product with a single company developing and supporting it better
    than a product being developed and supported by many companies?
    Dave {Reply Address in.sig}, Sep 13, 2005
  14. sutil83

    sutil83 Guest

    A little more elaboration for this, the reason I can't have open-source
    is legal. This will be used with proprietary software (ours and
    client's). We cannot use open-source because once you combine
    proprietary with open-source, and any changes are made, the proprietary
    software suddenly becomes open to the public. And thats a big no no.
    I thought I mentioned this earlier but I realize I didn't. Very Sorry.
    sutil83, Sep 13, 2005
  15. sutil83

    gretchen Guest


    There are *plenty* of bad reasons why people make the choices they do ...
    this is just another example of same.
    That's because there's no need for such products. But if you think there is,
    I've got some waterfront property in Florida with a bridge that I'll sell
    gretchen, Sep 13, 2005
  16. One needs to know why because often there is a simpler / more robust
    solution available once one gets past these half-conclusions.

    I have myself benefitted from explaining why in the past. Knowledgeable
    people are then able to analyze the situation, sometimes better than me,
    and suggest alternatives, which often end up saving me untold effort and

    So, it is not good enough of a reason (for this newsgroup), because it is
    not a technical reason.
    No insult was intended. However, since you provided no technical reasons,
    speculation was rife in my mind that this had more to do with
    salesmanship / psychology / metaphysics / what have you than with anything
    mere Linux users / admins can help you with, none of which are proper
    subjects for c.o.l.n.
    As quality open source solutions are available, I would be surprised to find
    if anyone even knew any commercial closed source solutions. It is rare (if
    not unknown) for human beings to go looking for things they can pay money
    for, if the stuff they have at hand is at once robust, fully functional and
    free. One may understand why one might pay good money for Mathematica for
    Linux, but one can be forgiven for being bemused by insistence on
    purchasing a commercial equivalent for emacs.

    If you insist upon finding a commercial solution, a few well-placed calls to
    the marketing departments of companies that sell Linux-based solutions
    would yield a greater return on your time and effort. It is quite likely
    that they would offer you Samba / OpenAFS / etc. and sell you support at
    the same time, but that is a matter I would leave in the capable hands of
    those marketing people.
    Madhusudan Singh, Sep 13, 2005
  17. sutil83

    sutil83 Guest

    Madhusudan, I understand your position and apologize for any
    instigating. This has been a long week (its only Tuesday!!) and I've
    had 100 percent of my time allocated to other things. This was
    supposed to be something to do on my "spare time" as a side task. So
    my readings/posts to this thread have been hurried to say the least,
    not to mention the frustration (probably evident in my rants) on my
    part due to the realization of my time left vs. my time needed.

    Anyway the overarching reasons for the restriction on open-source is
    legal as I said before. So in response to not having a need for this
    type of product, well there is always a need for non-open source
    versions of all applications, evident by the people banging down my
    office door asking for this.
    sutil83, Sep 13, 2005
  18. Aha. Finally a reason that makes some sense.

    Will you be using the code from the open source software in your proprietary
    software ?

    If not, your concern above is unfounded. I use emacs and what not with
    matlab / mathematica, etc.

    If so, the exact terms of the open source license would affect your rights.

    From my recollection (please recheck, this advice is offered gratis without
    any pretence at being authoritative, disclaiming all responsibility
    whatsoever) :

    GPL - no. You cannot borrow code without making the whole project GPL.
    LGPL - You can link against it, without borrowing code.
    BSD - You can do pretty much anything as long as copyright information is
    included in the new code.

    Here is a listing of common open source licenses :
    Madhusudan Singh, Sep 13, 2005
  19. I still fail to understand why you would need to know the reason why
    Well, "technically," if you don't want open source, then you shouldn't
    be considering Linux, either.
    Christopher Browne, Sep 13, 2005
  20. Samba is one of the best developed software you can get for Linux.
    All irrelevant.

    The O.P. is concerned about their legal dogma that including
    proprietary software with Samba means that they'll be forced to
    release their proprietary software in "open source" form.

    Any notion of "technical goodness" is irrelevant; it's all about the
    legal dogma.
    Christopher Browne, Sep 13, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.