You're aware that Microsoft themselves offer the free download called
Services For Unix that includes an NFSv3 client and server?
Only ever used it on a small network, but my understanding via the
feedback here, its kinda on the crappy side of the equation.
I do recall expecting that
On 5/10/06, Robert Thurlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:> Worse case scenario, SUN creates a java based NFS client/server for Windows> users - as for the good old business case, "why not" :-)You're aware that Microsoft themselves offer the free download called
Services For Unix
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Worse case scenario, SUN creates a java based NFS client/server for Windows
users - as for the good old business case, "why not" :-)
You're aware that Microsoft themselves offer the free download called
Services For Unix that includes an NFSv3 client and server?
Rob T
_
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 00:59, Robert Thurlow wrote:
> Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> > Being that SUN has a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft, and CIFS
> > IIRC is an openstandard,
>
> CIFS? An open standard? No way. Microsoft has never managed to
> publish anything complete enough for independen
On Sunday 07 May 2006 08:01 pm, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> Being that SUN has a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft, and CIFS IIRC
> is an openstandard, there is nothing stopping SUN from implementing a
> kosher CDDL compatible version of SMB/CIFS.
First of all, I don't know how comprehensive of
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Being that SUN has a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft, and CIFS IIRC is
an openstandard,
CIFS? An open standard? No way. Microsoft has never managed to
publish anything complete enough for independent implementation,
and has always felt free to change the imple
Anze Vidmar wrote:
Thank you for the info. However, I'm still wondering why smb/cifs support was
never
included in the solaris kernel? Is it a legal issue?
We were talking about a CIFS client for Solaris in 1999 or so, but
we couldn't proceed because we couldn't make the business case.
At tha
On Monday 08 May 2006 09:45, Anze Vidmar wrote:
> > Think about it; Solaris is big on servers, not so big
> > on desktops (until the recent
> > push to fix that, anyway). Having a Solaris server
> > use a Windows share is
> > like having a tractor-trailer towed by a Yugo; and
> > that's probably a
On Monday 08 May 2006 06:07, Anze Vidmar wrote:
> Thank you for the info. However, I'm still wondering why smb/cifs support
> was never included in the solaris kernel? Is it a legal issue?
>
> The reason why I'm asking you this is because I need to explain to the
> costumer why I can't mount shares
> Think about it; Solaris is big on servers, not so big
> on desktops (until the recent
> push to fix that, anyway). Having a Solaris server
> use a Windows share is
> like having a tractor-trailer towed by a Yugo; and
> that's probably an insult to
> the Yugo. OTOH, it certainly would be handy o
Think about it; Solaris is big on servers, not so big on desktops (until the
recent
push to fix that, anyway). Having a Solaris server use a Windows share is
like having a tractor-trailer towed by a Yugo; and that's probably an insult to
the Yugo. OTOH, it certainly would be handy on a Solaris d
Thank you for the info. However, I'm still wondering why smb/cifs support was
never included in the solaris kernel? Is it a legal issue?
The reason why I'm asking you this is because I need to explain to the costumer
why I can't mount shares from w2k3 storage on a solaris box (I've also tryed
12 matches
Mail list logo
