IMHO, the samba war comes down to total cost of ownership. I think Linux is roughly comparable to NT serving a mix of win9x and nt clients. NT's advantage is that it is very easy to configure if you don't know much about computers (the famous click-and-drool ui) meaning that admins should be cheaper to hire. Linux's is cost (free) and its famous uptime. And of course in a small environment, samba could be run on a low-end 486 w/ 16 megs of ram (or 8) w/o X and nt requires a pentium and lots of ram to run its gui. So while I would never use an NT box personally to run smb, I can understand businesses that do as long as Linux was considered an option. "Justin Ryan [PHT]" wrote: > > > Yeah, but that's different, and has to be there. But I imagine > > most linux people don't use smbfs at all. (Which way does Windows look at > > smb? As "ftp" or as "nfs"?) > > neither.. it looks at is as smb.. :) > > > > > A long time ago I heard that samba was known to beat NT on the > > same hardware. (Yeah, user-space samba under linux verses kernel-space smb > > under NT.) > > samba kicks NT's ass serving up NT clients. it is the other way around > serving up win9x clients. The only time samba has been known to equal NT > serving win9x clients is running from a ramdisk on solaris.. > > there are many factors outside of samba itself that have their own > influence on samba's performance.. > > -Justin > > |-------------------------------------------------- > |Justin Ryan > |Developer Relations / Support Associate > |Pacific HiTech / TurboLinux > |http://www.turbolinux.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |WebMaster, PCHelp - http://computers.iwz.com > |[EMAIL PROTECTED] > |-------------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
