From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 10 09:59:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EC737B401 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out004.verizon.net (out004pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.142]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5089643FA3 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:59:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([141.149.47.46]) by out004.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030710165923.TXWY14849.out004.verizon.net@mac.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:59:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3F0D9B69.90205@mac.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:59:21 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Xochellis References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out004.verizon.net from [141.149.47.46] at Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:59:23 -0500 cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Samba between Mac and BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:59:26 -0000 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