eddie wrote:Samba requires adding additional services that are not totally secure
NOTHING is
"totally secure", not even OpenSSH. I have installed two security patches in recent months for it. I have gotten used to running SELinux on my machines, and it can keep a good eye on Samba, locking it down further.
eddie wrote:and something else to slow down the machine.
This is the classic old "Oh that big, bloated thing will slow down your quad-core machine", which I find utterly ridiculous today with super high-powered machines for very little money. I would agree with you if we were talking about something on the scale of Windows Vista or OpenOffice.org, but come on, Samba isn't gonna take up more than a few megabytes of memory. And in Fergatron's case, I get the feeling he cares a little bit more about compatibility than performance.
eddie wrote:It also requires you to take more time setting up a second set of permissions.
Like three seconds? You're exaggerating to an absurd degree.
eddie wrote:Even with the gui apps, that is still extra work and unnecessary management.
In a literal sense, I sort of agree. But in a practical sense, I think this argument is completely bogus. First of all, you exaggerate the amount of time and effort it takes to get Samba going, and once it's going you just leave it, doing it's business, ESPECIALLY on a home computer, which is what this is about. We're not talking some corporate clustered file system here.
eddie wrote:Last but not least, you are using technology that could be considered software patent encumbered.
LOL!
Sorry, but I have to laugh now. This is just the biggest load of malarky I have heard from anybody but George W. Bush in a long time! First of all, Microsoft has showed absolutely NO evidence of patent infringement in Samba, and in our type of society, guilt has to be proved, not claimed.
eddie wrote:We have since dumped all samba and only use sshfs (Even windows machines). Ubuntu (as will other distros) will easily let you connect to sshfs type share either manually or via fstab. I did not like sshfs at first, because I did not realize all the power of it. Now it is a blessing not to have to mess with samba, swat , less security and another Microsoft crutch.
Glad it's working for you!
I'm serious, I'm happy for you that your system is working the way you want it to.
I have some gripes with SSHFS. I like to not have the file modification dates altered just because I move a file to a different location. For example, let's say I have an episode of TLLTS that I downloaded in 2006 (Modification date representing this), if I use SSHFS to move it to another machine, it changes the modification date to the date of the move, which really frustrates me. CIFS being more of an actual network file system (And not just a FUSE module) doesn't do this, and have some other advantages. Also I don't quite think the Samba developers would agree with you about your "Microsoft crutch" comment. There are UNIX extentions for CIFS making it fairly good for connecting UNIX and Linux machines, and allowing for case sensitive filenames and such.