On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:16 AM, jtd <j...@mtnl.net.in> wrote: > No. But you really suck. Noticed the distinct lack of a smiley. No? > heck never mind.
Bah...and you think I care for your remarks? :) >> Explain how exactly is SAMBA/CIFS better than a M$ share. > > Stability.... ooh...my gawd...stability... please backup your statements with proofs. > place and found that M$XP (dont remember if it was sp2) share of a > disk block on a M$2003 server was much slower than a simliar share on > a linux box. It could well be because of crappy AV on the doze boxen, > but you might as well burn the machine without AV. agreed. > Prima face linux would beat doze because linux has superior file / > block handling and network infrastructure apart from the AV overhead > (now dont get started on numbers etc unless u wanna pay me to do the > study). Linux supports various file systems. It wouldn't make sense to say linux has a superior file / block handling since not all Linux file systems are created equal :P > Similiar informal tests with samba and nfs (both on linux boxes) found > nfs to win. Again i had not tweaked samba in any way (and i havent > botherd to check for tweaks either), but increased the nfs block size > to 64k (or some such) for even better performance. Yeah yeah Linux beats crap out of Windows. Whose saying otherwise? Though compatibility is an issue infact heres a bit, you can use NFS on Windows boxes with some Unix utilities for windows software. I forget its name. > > GEDA, pcb, alliance, kicad. > Thank you. Thats knowledge shared really ... :) -- Regards, Dinesh A. Joshi -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
