Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] atalk for Digital Unix 4.0
From: Craig A Summerhill (craig@cni.org)
Date: Tue Mar 23 1999 - 16:40:22 EST
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Jeremy J. Reichman <jjracc@osfmail.isc.rit.edu> wrote:
>
> Having run through this same process but not reached any conclusion,
> yet, I'll offer my thoughts:
Sounds like we're on the same page...
> - HELIOS' EtherShare seems to be the frontrunner, IMHO. It's
> commercial and the main drawback (from my tech support department's
> point of view) is its requirement of a kernel module. This requirement
> may only be necessary for AppleTalk, not AFP over TCP/IP, based on
> speculation related to other products.
For me, the main drawback is price. I find $2900 for a 20 user license
a tad on the expensive side...
Kernel modules don't bother me too much. Both Ultrix 4.3a + and Digital
Unix 4.0a + seem to come configured by default with the only real option
that matters for EtherShare or CAP (option PACKETFILTERS). Unless I am
missing something, they both should work out of the box with either OS...
Anyway, I've built many a kernel in my day...
The problem I have with CAP is all the damn patches. I think that
is a really stupid way to distribute an open source package if you want
people to really use it. I can do the patching and hacking, its just
all the work involved... The main problem I've run into thus far is
the patch binary which ships with Digital Unix. I haven't figured
out the syntax there yet...
> - I haven't seen much info about netatalk integrating with samba.
We run the Samba/netatalk combo on our Linux servers, and that seems to
work fine for all parties involved. File transfers are a heck of a
lot slower with Samba though.
> - There is a samba port for Digital UNIX, as I understand. (Thus,
> our tech support is pushing us to use DAVE for our Macs. Not a trivial
> installation, maintenance, or training task.)
I have samba compiled on the Digital Unix Alpha. We tried Dave, and I
have to say it really sucked. Transfers were miserably slow, and the
Dave Control Panel was constantly screwing with other applications in
terms of spinning up the Mac's hard disk. We ran into one application
where there was a fairly significant conflict (I think it was RetroSpect,
if I recall correctly).
> - I've "suggested" (much more strongly than that) that Apple include
> SMB networking with future system releases since testing Mac OS 7.6. Of
> course, in the upcoming Mac OS X era, this may be a moot point -- Mac OS
> X will probably support a port samba for the client access side.
Yeah, I am thinking about just buying a big G3 and Mac OS X. For the
price of the Helios EtherShare license, I would just about break even...
Nevertheless, I hate to be an early adopter in the Apple camp.
> - My university would love to have a netatalk port for Digital UNIX.
Ditto.
--Craig A. Summerhill, Systems Coordinator and Program Officer Coalition for Networked Information 21 Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Internet: craig@cni.org AT&Tnet (202) 296-5098
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:29 EST