Samba between Mac and BSD

[Chuck Swiger]

Jim Xochellis wrote:
> Hi Chuck, hi list,

Hi, Jim--

> Chuck Swiger wrote:

>> NFS is an entirely reasonable choice for filesharing against OS X; netatalk
>> would be a comparitively better choice for MacOS 9 and previous versions. 
>> People who have laptops or other network roaming environments will probably
>> prefer Samba. [How's that for providing a fair slant on what each protocol
>> is well-suited for? :-)] >
> 
> What about the resource fork of the mac files.  Does NFS provide a 
> transparent way to preserve the resource fork?

For some definitions of "transparent".  If the client uses the AppleDouble 
format, that wraps the resource fork and works fine against a normal NFS server. 
  Some Mac NFS implementations do that, some don't.  However, if you care about 
preserving resource forks, netatalk is probably going to be a better bet.

Also, netatalk and Samba are both case-insensitive filesharing protocols, 
whereas NFS and Unix's FFS are case-sensitive; there's a potential impedence 
mismatch there as well, depending on what you are doing.

-- 
-Chuck