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 468052
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

Actually, Samba is not 100% windows compatible. You need CIFS to be really 100% compatible, this explains problems you had with Samba.

http://blogs.sun.com/amw/entry/cifs_in_solaris

"There is a common misconception that Windows interoperability is just a case of implementing file transfer using the CIFS protocol. Unfortunately, that doesn't get you very far. Windows interoperability also requires... "

Maybe that is one the reasons that Apple dropped Samba?


3 year old documentation. Ok applies the crappy version of samba, OS X was running. Also does not apply to all versions of samba even back then. Samba-tng since that bugger could run on windows.

Samba 4 "ntvfs handler" that yes is appearing in Samba 3.5+ line. This is a virtual NTFS with multi backends long term even possible to be back-ending to a real NTFS.

Issues talking about in 2007 are part of the reasons for Samba 4. Problem is that article explains why OS X has todo something now. They cannot stay sitting on the last GPLv2 version any more. Because soon that will look second rate next to current version.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"Actually, Samba is not 100% windows compatible. You need CIFS to be really 100% compatible, this explains problems you had with Samba.

http://blogs.sun.com/amw/entry/cifs_in_solaris

"There is a common misconception that Windows interoperability is just a case of implementing file transfer using the CIFS protocol. Unfortunately, that doesn't get you very far. Windows interoperability also requires... "

Maybe that is one the reasons that Apple dropped Samba?


3 year old documentation. Ok applies the crappy version of samba, OS X was running. Also does not apply to all versions of samba even back then. Samba-tng since that bugger could run on windows.

Samba 4 "ntvfs handler" that yes is appearing in Samba 3.5+ line. This is a virtual NTFS with multi backends long term even possible to be back-ending to a real NTFS.

Issues talking about in 2007 are part of the reasons for Samba 4. Problem is that article explains why OS X has todo something now. They cannot stay sitting on the last GPLv2 version any more. Because soon that will look second rate next to current version.
"
Ok, so you say that newer Samba versions are fully Windows compatible? Do you have any links to this? I would like to learn more.

FYI, an argument like yours: "the article you linked to is three years old" does not count as a valid argument. I hope you have better backup than this?

Reply Parent Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"[q]Actually, Samba is not 100% windows compatible. You need CIFS to be really 100% compatible, this explains problems you had with Samba.

http://blogs.sun.com/amw/entry/cifs_in_solaris

"There is a common misconception that Windows interoperability is just a case of implementing file transfer using the CIFS protocol. Unfortunately, that doesn't get you very far. Windows interoperability also requires... "

Maybe that is one the reasons that Apple dropped Samba?


3 year old documentation. Ok applies the crappy version of samba, OS X was running. Also does not apply to all versions of samba even back then. Samba-tng since that bugger could run on windows.

Samba 4 "ntvfs handler" that yes is appearing in Samba 3.5+ line. This is a virtual NTFS with multi backends long term even possible to be back-ending to a real NTFS.

Issues talking about in 2007 are part of the reasons for Samba 4. Problem is that article explains why OS X has todo something now. They cannot stay sitting on the last GPLv2 version any more. Because soon that will look second rate next to current version.
"
Ok, so you say that newer Samba versions are fully Windows compatible? Do you have any links to this? I would like to learn more.

FYI, an argument like yours: "the article you linked to is three years old" does not count as a valid argument. I hope you have better backup than this? [/q]

I gave the valid argument ntvfs. The issue talked about by the document pulled up are the differences between the Posix secuirty/filesystem framework and Windows secuity/filesystem the very issue ntvfs was created in samba 4 to address. And one why ntvfs will appear in the samba 3 line under GPLv3.

Also the ntvfs issue is an issue OS X will have to solve as well since OS X secuirty frameworks and filesystems don't conform to Windows secuirty/filesystem either.

http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2005-April/035751.html Please note the date that NTVFS is being talked about 2 years prior to the solaris document. Solaris document was basically stating a issue that samba developers had run into and were working on solving.

Solaris solution is dependent on ZFS. NTVFS Due to being a virtual mapping supporting many backends can get the same advantages as what the solaris guys are talking about without locking to a single filesystem.

Basically that document pulled up form Solaris is ZFS marketing. Because at the time it was not 100 percent true. Just because you decided to solve the problem a different way to mainline does not mean mainline does not have a solution in the works. Issue is 3 years has passed. Solution in works is starting to move out to mainline in samba.

Yes the document is historic documents really don't cut it. Particularly when the history was not 100 percent correct at the time.

Edited 2011-03-27 22:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2