Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Mar 2011 02:00 UTC
Mac OS X When you run smbd -V on your Snow Leopard installation, you'll see it's running SAMBA version 3.0.28a-apple. While I'm not sure how much difference the "-apple" makes, version 3.0.28a is old. Very old. In other words, it's riddled with bugs. Apple hasn't updated SAMBA in 3 years, and for Lion, they're dumping it altogether for something homegrown. The reason? SAMBA is now GPLv3.
Thread beginning with comment 467931
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: OSX SMB goes from bad to worse?
by kaiwai on Sat 26th Mar 2011 06:04 UTC in reply to "OSX SMB goes from bad to worse?"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

They've had over 2 years to write and test it - and all of it according to the specifications from day one. Why do you automatically assume it is going to be crap? based on what evidence? Microsoft made some major re-writes in Windows 7 and look at what has happened, one of the best selling version of Windows of all time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

One of the best selling version of Windows of all time.

I would like to add that, unlike some "vendors" say, Windows is not sold. Windows is a property of Microsoft(r). I would also like to add that a version of Windows can increase its own percentage of the market, but at the same time the total Windows market can be decreased, because the new version mainly ate the market of prior Windows versions, and at the same time was not able to keep the total Windows percentage.

That is what would be seen in those reports:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-02/SquidRepor...
http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2010-10/SquidRepor...
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

It would be interesting to see an actual report from the web of Osnews.

Edited 2011-03-26 07:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

They've had over 2 years to write and test it - and all of it according to the specifications from day one. Why do you automatically assume it is going to be crap? based on what evidence? Microsoft made some major re-writes in Windows 7 and look at what has happened, one of the best selling version of Windows of all time.


Actually, Vista had those major rewrites and was one of the worst selling versions of Windows of all time. Windows 7 improved on those rewrites and "got it right" resulting in being one of the best selling versions of Windows of all time.

Rewrites that are done with only internal testing very often break when tested by the larger public. (Look at OsX 10.0 for the best proof that Apples rewrites can be very crappy)

Reply Parent Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, Vista had those major rewrites and was one of the worst selling versions of Windows of all time. Windows 7 improved on those rewrites and "got it right" resulting in being one of the best selling versions of Windows of all time.


No, all Windows 7 did was actually finish the job; GDI acceleration should have been something in Windows Vista rather than it being held off till the next version. What you're talking about has nothing to do with re-writing and everything to do with Microsoft not finishing the job properly. They were in a situation that either the hold it back for another 6 months and risk the thing turning into vapourware or just getting the damn thing out the door asap.

Where is the evidence that Apple's implementation of SMB2 will be 'feature incomplete'?

Rewrites that are done with only internal testing very often break when tested by the larger public. (Look at OsX 10.0 for the best proof that Apples rewrites can be very crappy)


Mac OS X 10.0 was never designed for mass consumption - it was to get it out the door, that is why they offered a free upgrade to 10.1, that is why they offered dual boot configurations. Apple realised that 10.0 was 'work in progress' and hence they never thrusted it upon people - end users always had the option of going with Mac OS 9 if they wanted and many did go that route until 10.1 was released 6 months after 10.0 was released.

Edited 2011-03-27 04:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Vista was a beta shoved out the door to give them something to sell while they built the REAL version, aka Windows 7...nothing more. If you look up the history of Longhorn (what was to be Vista) you'll see it was due to be out in 2003 and not only did it end up nearly half a decade behind schedule but but they had to drop a whole bunch of features such as WinFS just to get it out the door at all.


I have to agree that with that is so loyal Apple is nuts not to be beta testing this software in the wild. As for GPL V3, what did everyone expect? Thanks to the "TiVo trick" GPL V2 is officially useless, hell you might as well just release as PD for all the freedom GPL V2 gives you now. That is why I've been trying to warn people that think the GPL will keep them from getting boned by Android because Google went out of their way to avoid GPL V3 and already we are seeing the fruits of that avoidance with more phones coming out locked down while running Android. What good is having the code if you can't actually use it?

So while I support Apple's right to choose whatever software runs on their OS (and I still think MSFT should have been busted for the OEM clauses and NOT IE, as they should be able to bundle anything they want with THEIR product) I would advise all those that support FOSS to be pushing developers to switch to GPL V3 ASAP, because otherwise the corps can just TiVo trick your rights away. With eFuses and code signing being so cheap all GPL V2 does is give corps a license to rip off developers while not only giving nothing back but actually taking away the rights of users to modify and improve, which was the whole point of GPL in the first place, which some seem to forget.

For those that don't know or have forgotten RMS came up with GPL in the first place because he wasn't allowed the code to improve a printer driver at MIT. And this is why GPL will always above all support the right of the user to modify and improve the code so that GPL users don't find themselves in the same situation RMS was in all those years ago.

Reply Parent Score: 1

theosib Member since:
2006-03-02

You have a good point. And I'm hopeful they've done a good job.

However, a common problem with any software development is that you just don't get some bugs until the software is out in the wild, and they can be doozies. Anything that's hard to reproduce is less likely to be caught during alpha and beta.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You have a good point. And I'm hopeful they've done a good job.

However, a common problem with any software development is that you just don't get some bugs until the software is out in the wild, and they can be doozies. Anything that's hard to reproduce is less likely to be caught during alpha and beta.


But I'd say that their implementation of SMB2 will be a whole lot better than the current situation; dealing with a code base that is a horrible and nasty hack and trying to at the same time add new features whilst not breaking something. In the case of Apple's SMB2 implementation it is a clean break without having to think about SMB1, they can make design decisions knowing that it'll be in a constant state of evolution etc. It can introduce new bugs for sure but at the same time I think the benefits far out weigh the current situation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

vocivus Member since:
2010-03-13

Apple's NFS implementation was horrible until sometime after 10.5 - and NFS has been an open spec since the 80s. I somehow doubt that they're going to come up with a reasonable 1.0 release of this mess.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple's NFS implementation was horrible until sometime after 10.5 - and NFS has been an open spec since the 80s. I somehow doubt that they're going to come up with a reasonable 1.0 release of this mess.


The reason why NFS was horrible is because they hadn't touched it in something like 20 years. Apple has 100 'engineering resources' (a made up unit for this example) that they can allocate, do they allocate these said resources to features and parts of the operating system very few utilise or do they focus in their energies on the parts that 90% of the end users touch on a daily basis? SMB2 is fully documented, there is no weird undocumented parts of it, and better still we're talking about something that is in high demand, a feature that the market to one and all with Windows interoperability being one of Mac OS X biggest strengths (according to Apple). It would make little or no sense for Apple to treat their SMB2 implementation like NFS given how important it is.

Interesting enough those WebDAV is apparently going to become the 'protocol of choice' for iPod Touch/iPad/iPhone file sharing in the future which makes me wonder whether some time in the future Apple will be looking to maybe replace AFP in the long run.

Btw, one thing that hasn't been discussed yet - how does this change impact on their SMB implementation on their Airport Extreme and Time Capsule routers they sell.

Reply Parent Score: 2