Inside Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server: Apple replaces Samba for Windows networking services

2456

Comments

  • gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,341member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    No because SMB won't be part of Mac OS X as SMB refers to Samba.



    SMB and SMB2 are defined by Microsoft. Apple has said they'll be rolling their own.. just not using the Samba solution.



    So the guy asking if it would be more stable - the answer is it will be different, an all Apple solution (possibly licensed by Microsoft but who knows). Can't say if it'll work better or not.
  • enjournienjourni Posts: 254member
    And add native NTFS read/write support.



    Common.
  • mnbmnb Posts: 15member
    SMB stands for Server Message Block, not Samba. Samba's name was derived from the name of the protocol, SMB.
  • ajmasajmas Posts: 521member
    I wonder if it would have made a difference if Samba was LGPL based? At the same time the limitation of GPLv3 is with any sort of patent or DRM that would limit implementation. This could have caused a road block for Apple in adding certain missing features b
  • pxtpxt Posts: 683member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post




    ---



    This is going to be super interesting and Lion is getting awesomer and awesomer in my eyes.



    ---




    I would like to think so, but given that Apple regularly deletes people's data due to not being able to do data migration or synchronisation, I worry.
  • taugust04taugust04 Posts: 43member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    No because SMB won't be part of Mac OS X as SMB refers to Samba.



    SMB is not Samba. SMB stands for Server Message Block, which is the protocol developed by IBM and Microsoft for networking on Windows and OS/2 (at the time it was being developed). Samba is the open source project that reverse engineered the protocol.



    Just because Samba 3.x will not be included in Lion, it does not mean that SMB/CIFS support will be excluded. As stated in an earlier message, Apple could write their own code, license additional code from Microsoft, use the SMB2 spec which is documented by Microsoft to add SMB functionality, or fork the earlier version of Samba that is GPL2 licensed and add in their own code modifications under that license. Apple already uses some of the SMBFS file system that is licensed with the BSD license in Mac OS X, so there are a lot of options available.



    So SMB performance and reliability could be improved in Lion, depending on the implementation method Apple uses.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oomu View Post


    NO you are WRONG !



    you commentators are wrong about gpl2/3



    about the reasons you think it's explaining why apple remove samba you are wrong : GPL 3 ask the same thing than GPL 2.



    Really? So GPL3 is the same as GPL2? Then why the new version number?



    And I notice that everyone else is providing references to support their claims while all you've provided is your own personal ranting.
  • auclaucl Posts: 19member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    Hmm, so I guess instead of SMB://<fileshare> it will be <whatever>://<fileshare> to connect to windows shares?



    smb://<fileshare> and cifs://<fileshare> should continue to work.



    It stands for Server Message Block (SMB), and Common Internet File System (CIFS).



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block
  • noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,026member
    So, how will Lion interact with Linux (or other Unix) computers? Which protocol can or will be used to connect to server shares on a Linux/Unix machine? And which protocol will be used to connect to Mac running Lion from a Linux/Unix machine?
  • mr beardsleymr beardsley Posts: 365member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    So, how will Lion interact with Linux (or other Unix) computers? Which protocol can or will be used to connect to server shares on a Linux/Unix machine? And which protocol will be used to connect to Mac running Lion from a Linux/Unix machine?



    For Linux/Unix I'd imagine you'd use NFS. OS X can share and connect to afp:, smb:, and nfs:.
  • noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,026member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr Beardsley View Post


    For Linux/Unix I'd imagine you'd use NFS. OS X can share and connect to afp:, smb:, and nfs:.



    I just checked back, all my mounted Linux drives are actually mounted via sftp (courtesy of FUSE/Macfusion/ExpanDrive).
  • mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 6,799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajmas View Post


    I wonder if it would have made a difference if Samba was LGPL based? At the same time the limitation of GPLv3 is with any sort of patent or DRM that would limit implementation. This could have caused a road block for Apple in adding certain missing features b



    That would have made a big difference.



    It all matters on the software license of the software from Apple's stack and how it interacts with the shared software from the non-Apple stack.



    For instance, WebCore and JavaScriptCore are under the LGPL.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit



    Quote:

    Open-sourcing

    On June 7, 2005, Safari developer Dave Hyatt announced on his weblog that Apple was open-sourcing WebKit (previously, only WebCore and JavaScriptCore were open source) and opening up access to WebKit's CVS tree and the bug Database tool.[13] This was announced at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference 2005 by Apple Senior Vice President of Software Engineering Bertrand Serlet.



    In mid-December 2005 support for Scalable Vector Graphics was merged into the standard build[17] and in early January 2006 the source code was migrated from CVS to Subversion.



    WebKit's JavaScriptCore and WebCore components are available under the GNU Lesser General Public License, while the rest of WebKit is available under a BSD-style license.



  • vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    This is actually great news.
  • uhuuhu Posts: 1member
    That's very interesting. But are we sure, that this mean that the Lion Server has it's own AD Service included. Or does that mean, that the Lion Server will have some simple File sharing / mounting facilities and that a separate Windows Server has to be installed to run and handle the AD service functionalities?
  • normmnormm Posts: 453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oomu View Post


    it seems difficult to believe Apple can recreate a complete cifs stacks from scratch.



    it's surely a fork of the samba project. else : wow !

    ...

    Apple doing its own cifs stacks ? WOW ! it's already "wowah" like that.



    New development for CIFS has been under GPLv3 for three or four years already. I can't believe Apple hasn't been working on this at least that long. In addition, there are several commercially available CIFS stacks. Apple is a $300B company, with $60B in cash in the bank: if there were a problem, Apple would just buy a CIFS implementation.
  • addicted44addicted44 Posts: 808member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NormM View Post


    there are several commercially available CIFS stacks



    Shhh....Telling the FSF zealot that some people actually create SW for money is like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist.



    You must have crushed its spirit.
  • boomblastocystboomblastocyst Posts: 1member
    Hoping for the best. Very frustrated trying to access Windows Home Server from my new Snow Leopard iMac... only my older macs running Leopard seem to be able to keep a connection to it.
  • jra@samba.orgjra@samba.org Posts: 14member
    mbarriault wrote:



    > "I believe, and someone correct me if I'm wrong"



    Ok - you're wrong :-).



    > "but the primary idealogical difference comes down to "source code must be available" covers

    > in derived works. In GPLv2, you can use a source work, if you modify it then you have to

    > provide source for those modifications, but if your code just works with it then you don't have

    > to open-source your own code. Under GPLv3 you can't use an open-source component without > being entirely open-source yourself."



    No, that's not true. You can easily use a GPLv3 component without being entirely open source. Google uses Samba, IBM uses Samba, EMC uses Samba, most of the small NAS boxes you can buy use Samba, all under GPLv3.



    Jeremy.
  • foljsfoljs Posts: 219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    Shhh....Telling the FSF zealot that some people actually create SW for money is like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist.



    You must have crushed its spirit.



    Ha, you make him seem like "Martha M. Masters" in House MD...
  • jra@samba.orgjra@samba.org Posts: 14member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    Shhh....Telling the FSF zealot that some people actually create SW for money is like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist.



    You must have crushed its spirit.



    No, actually we (the Samba Team) are quite cool with it. Apple makes their own commercial decisions to decide what's best for them. If they want to move away from GPL software, that is their right and we have no grounds for complaint.



    I think they're wasting resources, as we (the Samba Team) will maintain a SMB/CIFS/SMB2/AD server for them if they want, but if they find our license unacceptable then they need to do what's right for their users.



    We will still try and produce binaries for Samba 3.6.x and Samba 4.0.x (which will include full AD support) for users who wish to continue using Samba on OSX.



    Jeremy.
Sign In or Register to comment.