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)

Reply via email to