Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:38:12 +0300 From: Jim Xochellis <dxoch@escape.gr> To: cswiger@mac.com Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Samba between Mac and BSD Message-ID: <FCA89D7A-B2CA-11D7-8D3D-003065C4E486@escape.gr>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Chuck, hi list, Chuck Swiger wrote: > 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? :-)] What about the resource fork of the mac files. Does NFS provide a transparent way to preserve the resource fork? Best Regards Jim Xochellis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FCA89D7A-B2CA-11D7-8D3D-003065C4E486>