[nSLUG] Why you are not seeing software ported to Linux
George N. White III
gnwiii at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 18:22:25 ADT 2011
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM, D G Teed <donald.teed at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Daniel Morrison <draker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Erm, yes, actually. The CIFS protocols are public and available here:
When discussing standards, only a small fraction are unambiguous and
can be reliably implemented (e.g., multiple independent implementations
that interoperate). The CIFS specs were buggy/incomplete, but there have
been many updates. SMB2 looks implementable, and since it is the default
on recent Windows, may actually be widely used in home networks, but
perhaps not much used at large sites with many Windows XP clients.
>> The specs for SMB2 were released before the first implementation
>> (Windows Vista) and the Samba project now supports SMB2 as well.
>> Originally the Samba project was reverse-engineering, but no more.
And reverse engineering of a very complex protocol at that.
> Yes, I had not been keeping up. This is the only thing I've learned
> from your post and I'm glad for it. Now I can feel OK about
> putting pressure on the samba folks when there is a bug.
SMB2 is really a whole different (and much simplified) protocol. "How
do I turn off SMB2 is a FAQ", partly due to security issues in 2009, but
also for performance reasons:
I assume Apple Tiger's SMB implementation used the SMB2 specs. If they
get it right, it would be another widely used independent implementation.
George N. White III <aa056 at chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
More information about the nSLUG