ChuckAnyone know why CIFS support is so sad in FreeBSD? I've got a NAS that is exporting things to the windows clients that I also use on non-window clients but no, I'm not gonna let it run V1.
ewhac@ChuckMcManis Oy... Don't get me started...
I have CIFS/Samba running on the old TrueNAS (without AD). While there *was* a Windows client once, there isn't anymore. Meanwhile, accessing from my Linux machines occasionally gives weird errors, and the files on the server itself keep acquiring very bizarre ACLs.
And I never figured out how to get UID mapping working properly.
@ChuckMcManis It's enough to make me want to switch to NFS...
@ewhac Also have TrueNAS. Since the goal is to get rid of Windows eventually this is likely a temporary pain. I did try using NFS on the Windows side for a while and every single time Windows did an update it turned it off and things broke. I blame Paul Leach at Microsoft but there are others. At one time I had a copy of the court ordered 'full' specification for CIFS V2/V3.
Nuke Them from OrbitYou'd need to find a copy of my RPC presentation at the IETF in Amsterdam in 1991 to get it. 😃
I didn't find this, of course, since almost everything from back than seems to have rotted away.
But I believe you. You likely had very good reasons. Actually I think we should have more specific name accountability when people work for super villains.
Well in this case Paul had come to Microsoft from Apollo Computers and I was RPC architect for Sun proposing we give the IETF RPC/XDR for free and we could make it a standard. Paul (and Microsoft) started attending IETF that year *specifically* to shut down Sun and any other standards that might "limit Microsoft's ability to compete." RPC and NFS were threats to them. 1/2
@glitzersachen @ewhac
What came out of that was a lot of noise about how "canonical transport" formats unfairly burdened machines that weren't canonical, and how one way of doing distributed storage couldn't possibly serve everyone forever. Anyway, water under the bridge as they say, Microsoft got their way and IETF didn't standardize an RPC. (or network attached storage until iWarp sometime later) 2/2
What came out of that was a lot of noise about how "canonical transport" formats unfairly burdened machines that weren't canonical, and how one way of doing distributed storage couldn't possibly serve everyone forever. Anyway, water under the bridge as they say, Microsoft got their way and IETF didn't standardize an RPC. (or network attached storage until iWarp sometime later) 2/2
Microsoft in the 90s, doing Microsoft. It's a riddle to me, how this ever was acceptable.
Personally I believe they haven't gotten better, but in camouflaging themselves.
Everybody's MMV.