Subject:
|
Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:26:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2051 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:13:42 GMT, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley)
> wrote:
>
> > Would surprise me. Samba blows. Sorry, but it does. Touching it
> > with 95/98, which, unfortunately, is what a ton of places use, is a
> > slow painful joke. Touching it with NT is slightly better, but
> > still slow and painful.
>
> The question is, how does it's blowiness relate to the negative-mass
> white hole that is NT SMB serving?
Well, not sure. But in *my* admittedly limited Linux/Samba
experience trying to introduce Samba as an alternative to NT for
file serving is a joke. File copies went from seconds to minutes on
95/98, and at increased dramatically even when going NT -> Samba.
Samba's a great idea, and the way it allows you to get around some
licensing issues is cool, but, knowing what I know about it
(admittedly not a ton, especially since the man pages weren't enough
and I had to actually buy a book to help me get it up and running) I
wouldn't recommend it for any but the smallest offices where speed
wasn't really an issue. Maybe if I were a RCSE instead of an MCSE
I'd be able to squeeze more performance out of it.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
92 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
