Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils

[Brian May <bam@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Miles" == Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

    Miles> [Isn't nfs4 rather different than previous versions, in
    Miles> that it's fixed some of the most egregious "nfs
    Miles> bogosities"?]

I have been told NFS 4 has nothing in common with NFS except the name,
and its reputation for being insecure (even if this reputation in
unfair...).

    Miles> All things considered I'd rather have nfs, even in it's
    Miles> horrid traditional form, than nothing.

There are still times when traditional NFS is still the best solution

(disclaimer: I haven't user NFS 4).

Does nfs-kernel-server support v4 yet?

Back on topic, is Samba included in the default installation?

If yes => should NFS be treated as lesser then Samba and not included
by default?

If no => why is NFS included when Samba isn't? Isn't this inconstant?

Anyway, just some thoughts - personally, for the rare case I need NFS,
I am happy to install it myself.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>