[BBLISA] Chucking samba

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: bblisa-bounces at bblisa.org [mailto:bblisa-bounces at bblisa.org] On
> Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> 
> I've used AFS since the 1980s.  The OpenAFS Windows client is very
> stable, and uses a loopback adapter, which insulates the AFS client

The mere fact that you have to say "yes it's stable" makes me less
confident.  ;-)

Although I know this is unrelated, I do have one parallel experience, which
I do allow to shape my current behavior and opinions:  There was a time
where I installed some Ext3 plugin for windows, obviously to access external
Linux formatted disks.  Everything was fine for ... I don't know ... 3
months I guess.  Then one day my system started blue-screening regularly
(once or twice a day) and I banged my head up and down figuring out where my
hardware failure was.  As a last-ditch effort, I ghosted my system,
reinstalled windows, and it became stable again.  Thus eliminating hardware
as the source of the problem.  So then I went back to my ghost image, and
painstakingly removed everything, one by one.  As you might have guessed, MS
released some software update, which suddenly made the Ext3 plugin unstable.
Cuz obviously that's a 3rd party add-on which is pretty deep down ... not
necessarily in kernel space, but certainly lower than the typical user app.

There would have to be a really huge advantage of some other network
protocol over CIFS, or a huge benefit of some other filesystem other than
NTFS, for me to consider deviation from the "norm" to be wise, using
Windows.

That being said, I understand there are some real advantages of AFS, and
it's certainly worth while in some situations.  Giving Toby the benefit of
the doubt ... it's his choice.

I presume by now, he's got the picture loud and clear, that BBLISA folks
overwhelmingly recommend just using the AD instead.  With only a minority of
exceptions.


> I use it on a daily basis.  No crashes. Good backup capabilities.  As

Double emphasis on "no crashes" ...  hrrrmmmmm....


> the
> NetApp feature of copy-on-write versioning is inspired by the AFS
> backup
> snapshot 

Please tell that to Netapp, so they'll drop the copy-on-write lawsuit
against sun/oracle.


> AFS is in the class of being widely deployed, but
> not a dominant system. Yet.

"Yet."  Hehehehe
You mean since the 1980's when you started using it, it simply needs more
time to become dominant?   ;-)