Re: Samba for Cygwin

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 01:15:50PM -0700, Michael F. March wrote:
>I happen to prefer the administration of Samba to traditional NT/2k
>shares. That is also why I use Apache under Win2K instead of
>IIS.

In this case, I'd just have to say "Get over it".  It sounds like an
a lot of work to port a file service layer on top of an *existing*
completely operational layer.  Administration of shares on Windows is
hardly complicated.

The Windows OS doesn't implicitly support the http protocol.  So, you
can choose whatever web server you want.  Windows does implicitly
support the SMB protocol.  It invented the SMB protocol.  In this case
porting a UNIX application to Windows to support something that existed
on Windows first doesn't make much sense to me.

I can just see the "Why is Samba so slow on Cygwin?" posts now.

>> That's like asking to port WINE to Cygwin (or port cygwin to WINE).
>> It's a gee-whiz proof-of-concept, but has no practical value.
>
>I believe there is a WINE port to Cygwin. Many of the Wine developers
>wanted to be able to develope Wine under Windows.

It's hard to understand how this could work, unless they're also using
the Cygwin XFree86 server.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/