Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:16:05 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Samba between Mac and BSD Message-ID: <3F0D12B5.5050503@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20030710104712.C4A3.JOEL@alpsgiken.gr.jp> References: <000001c345d0$227e4300$1d02a8c0@kids> <20030708224159.A10335@barryg.mi.celestial.com> <20030710104712.C4A3.JOEL@alpsgiken.gr.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joel Rees wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:11:11PM -0700, esayer1@san.rr.com wrote: [ ... ] >> I would think that NFS would be a better choice between two Unix >> systems than Samba. > > To which I might add that netatalk would seem to me to be a better > option than Samba if the only client is a Mac. > > But then I've never done netatalk on freeBSD. 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? :-)] -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F0D12B5.5050503>