On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:08 +0200, "Benny Lvfgren" <bl-li...@lofgren.biz> wrote: > On 2010-10-29 11.28, Eric Furman wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:23 +0200, "Henning Brauer" > >> * James A. Peltier<jpelt...@sfu.ca> [2010-10-28 20:23]: > >>> What it offers: > >>> Kerberos security, > >> what again? > >>> selectable security level (-o sec=krb5/krb5i/krb5p), > >> ha ha ha ha > >>> firewall friendly > >> rrrrright > > And this huge infrastructure creation (nfsv4/Kerberos/blah blah) all so > > his users can type 'cp' and 'mv' instead of 'put' and 'get'? > > I don't get it. > > Also the last time I checked SFTP was supported on all the > > platforms he listed.... > > Or did I miss something? > > Oh come on, surely you can't fail to realize that there are actually > benefits to having all your data on one place, always? Especially if you > have an environment where you might need to access it from several > different platforms. > > Not only in terms of user friendliness but also to avoid the problem of > having to cope with several versions of the same data, or even the > problem of the data producer and consumer not being the same. And those > were just some examples where a central networked file system comes in > really handy. > > (That the available options to solve the problem may not be perfect is > another matter entirely. I'm sure you can still appreciate the fact that > the need may exist?)
OK, then why not regular nfs on a segmented and protected network that makes all the other so called security measures unnecessary. Seems to me like it would be a lot simpler. I like simple. I could be wrong...?? (and don't get me started on AD....ugh)
