--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 05:54:21PM -0500, Kadari Mayson wrote:
> Well, my point was that you would be installing SAMBA on the server side
> (NetBSD box), so this is still relevant.  If you have OS X, then the upgr=
ade
> to 10.1 and 10.1.1 are free.

Sorry if this comes off as abrasive, but you are COMPLETELY missing
the point here. This is the port-mac68k mailing list. Many people
must support Macintosh models that don't have a PowerPC, much less a
G3. For these people, using MacOS X, much less some specific version
of it, is completely impossible. "Use Samba" is a (monetarily)
losing suggestion for these people even if there's a free MacOS
8/9 client involved: they still have to maintain software on every
client instead of just on the server and, yes, that really does cost
real money.

> Netatalk is HORRIBLY slow compared to SMB anyway, it's just a terribly
> kludgy hack and completely unnecessary, after you use it, you'll understa=
nd.

=2E.. and this bit is just ludicrously self-indulgent. What about this
thread gave you to believe that anyone recommending it had not used
Netatalk before?

Fwiw, I found Netatalk (before any ASUN version existed) on an i386
(literally) machine running Debian Linux (this is all about four
years ago) to be significantly faster when accessing it from a Mac
Quadra than when accessing a similarly-sized shared partition living
on a PowerMac 6100/66 running Mac OS 7.5ish.

I don't think I've ever actually suggested that Netatalk should
magically make the filename-length problem go away. I've been
suggesting all along just that it make it easier for the
administrator to deal with. I think plenty of people would find
Netatalk totally sufficient for their needs, and this small addition
would make them much happier.

> Apple is attempting to phase out AFP anyway, but they have not introduced=
 a
> successor.

Sure they have, and it's called NFS. That's why they're shipping
Mac OS X with decent NFS support these days and gradually doing
backwards support only for AppleTalkIP stuff. They (very sanely)
want to get rid of the ridiculously talky AppleTalk networking.

But what Apple is or isn't supporting today is totally not the
point. There are plenty of people subscribed to this list specifically
because they have macs that Apple doesn't care about any more and
they would rather pull some of those up as real Unix servers than
drop the money on Apple's shiny new boxes. To turn a cold shoulder
to them is ridiculous, cruel, and wholly inappropriate.

--=20
       ~ g r @ eclipsed.net

--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjv5ntEACgkQ9ehacAz5CRrhoQCfe7nNUbHencsZ9ZrCavD9/i+d
3UsAnRVu/Al85izklCbWqrb7q+cjWJBS
=tBfZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE--