On 3/11/08, yuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any advantage to using samba in a Linux-only environment? It obeys symbolic links correctly, but the price you pay is that it is slower than to NFS.
> At the moment if I want to browse any other machine on the LAN I use > the "fish:" url in konqueror. That has the computational overhead of encrypting the data for transmission. And being a secure protocol any concept of a public repository is a foreign notion. > 1) from a user's point of view, is "smb:" any easier to use than > "fish:" in konqueror? No passwords needed for files or directories declared to be public. > 2) from an admin's POV, is samba any better than running sshd on every box? > Or, are we talking six of one, half dozen of the other? For tiny - 2 or 3 machines - networks, imho, yes. otherwise setting up some sort of file sharing is better. iirc, there is a kicker applet for Konqueror which allows you to set up a temporary shared directory by just a mouse click. atm I can't remember the full details. > I understand that samba also shares other resources, but I have CUPS > for the only shareable resource on my LAN. True. -- Sincerely etc. Christopher Sawtell
