On my Win and Linux network I pass files around with FTP servers and clients. Do I need samba, what does it have to offer that FTP doesn't?
A different interface and the ability to treat files on a remote box as if they were in the local box.
For example, I have my mp3's on my server. I mount my samba share on my local box as /mnt/music. So whatever application i use (like rythmbox) can access this site as if it was browsing my local computer.
I don't think you can do that with ftp..
Yeah, I play mp3s over a samba share. It's easier than ftp, because you don't have to login.
I seeNow I see the point of it all. If I wanted to play an mp3 file from another computer on my network I would have to download it using FTP first. I would also end up with 2 file that are the same.
I'll install samba now -attually It already is installed. I just need to set it up.
Thanks for the info ;D
In the business environment, you can map the user folders to each people in your company. When you do a backup, all you do is back up the server and you are done.
So when your company fire somebody, you do not need to worry about somene intentionally erasing some files. All is on your server.
Well with XP, it actually doesnt matter. In fact I would reccomend (assuming that you have NT/2K/XP machines) either getting the free download of MS Services for UNIX or going to OpenAFS (IBM's NFS protocol). The MS one allows NFS connectivity, as the OpenAFS gives a stable, reliable, truly open and cross platform file sharing method. I am a very big advocate of OAFS, and try to use it as much as possible. But unfortunately it suffers the same drawback of MS's SFU, no 95/98[me=Schotty]support. So the usefulness truly depends on what OS'es you run.[/me]
As to my first sentence, XP will allow one to map FTP sites, so transfers are very simple. With 95/98/ME, Samba may be easier, but not necessarily any more productive than that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks