On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 12:57:23PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 09:38 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > > > Samba and NFS are two different protocols for the same stuff and can be > > used independently. If you need to access the server from XP then you > > definitely need Samba and not NFS. Samba is MS's file sharing protocol > > (SMB), but better implemented ;) > > Better implemented? no. Bug for bug compliant, is what the Samba Team > claims. Maybe more robust on the serverside. > IIRC, I read somewhere that MS actually uses Samba to train new developers who will work on SMB/CIFS. The reason is that the Microsoft code is such a convoluted mess that it would make any thinking person run screaming in terror. The Samba code is much cleaner and makes it possible for a new person to understand the protocol. Even if that turns out to be an urban legend, there are many documented benchmarks where Samba on Linux beats the pants off Windows for serving file and print services. Either way, I would say that Samba has "better" implementation. Now, whether they can keep up with the MS moving target is a different story. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature