Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:16:05 -0400
From:      Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Samba between Mac and BSD
Message-ID:  <3F0D12B5.5050503@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030710104712.C4A3.JOEL@alpsgiken.gr.jp>
References:  <000001c345d0$227e4300$1d02a8c0@kids> <20030708224159.A10335@barryg.mi.celestial.com> <20030710104712.C4A3.JOEL@alpsgiken.gr.jp>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Joel Rees wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:11:11PM -0700, esayer1@san.rr.com wrote:
[ ... ]
>> I would think that NFS would be a better choice between two Unix
>> systems than Samba.
> 
> To which I might add that netatalk would seem to me to be a better
> option than Samba if the only client is a Mac. 
> 
> But then I've never done netatalk on freeBSD.

NFS is an entirely reasonable choice for filesharing against OS X; netatalk 
would be a comparitively better choice for MacOS 9 and previous versions. 
People who have laptops or other network roaming environments will probably 
prefer Samba.  [How's that for providing a fair slant on what each protocol is 
well-suited for? :-)]

-- 
-Chuck




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F0D12B5.5050503>