On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 15:34, Alan Shutko wrote: > Mark Roach <mrroach@okmaybe.com> writes: > > > Samba seems like a decent tool for file sharing on linux don't write it > > off too quickly. If I'm not mistaken it was originally designed for > > unixen. > > Well, it was originally designed to run on Unixen. I doubt it was > originally designed to be used by Unix clients. > > How exactly do you set executable, suid, or sticky bits over Samba? > (On a per-file basis, naturally.) I would imagine that suid would be considered a 'bad thing' for a user mountable file sharing protocol. In my mind this is the difference between nfs (remote file system) and smb (file sharing): nfs is meant for highly controlled servers where the shortcomings mentioned earlier in this thread are not important (in my mind I equate nfs with something akin to a networked scsi bus), smb is useful for remote access of data for users (not the system itself). Perhaps I am overly simplifying this, but it seems to me that these protocols attack very different problems altogether. -Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part