On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 04:57:02PM -0500, Mark Roach wrote:
| 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.
The 'samba' program was designed to be run on Unix systems. However,
the protocol it implements (SMB) is a Microsoft thing and was designed
for their Windows systems.
| > 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.
Perhaps, but how can you set _any_ bits? The answer is you can't.
SMB doesn't embody the UNIX permission model at all. It only embodies
the Windows one, which didn't exist until win2k or so.
| Perhaps I am overly simplifying this, but it seems to me that these
| protocols attack very different problems altogether.
You are correct here. NFS was meant to provide a UNIX-style remote fs
whereas SMB was meant to provide a Windows-style remote fs.
-D
--
Do not pay attention to every word people say,
or you may hear your servant cursing you --
for you know in your heart
that many times you yourself have cursed others.
Ecclesiastes 7:21-22
http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/
Attachment:
pgphgS4JJ3R9E.pgp
Description: PGP signature