Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:59:21 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Jim Xochellis <dxoch@escape.gr> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Samba between Mac and BSD Message-ID: <3F0D9B69.90205@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <FCA89D7A-B2CA-11D7-8D3D-003065C4E486@escape.gr> References: <FCA89D7A-B2CA-11D7-8D3D-003065C4E486@escape.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jim Xochellis wrote: > Hi Chuck, hi list, Hi, Jim-- > Chuck Swiger wrote: >> 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? For some definitions of "transparent". If the client uses the AppleDouble format, that wraps the resource fork and works fine against a normal NFS server. Some Mac NFS implementations do that, some don't. However, if you care about preserving resource forks, netatalk is probably going to be a better bet. Also, netatalk and Samba are both case-insensitive filesharing protocols, whereas NFS and Unix's FFS are case-sensitive; there's a potential impedence mismatch there as well, depending on what you are doing. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F0D9B69.90205>