![]() ![]() Apple writing SMBX from the ground up is silly when they could simply have spent a small amount of cash and gotten the real thing. The real right play would have been apple putting on its big boy pants and paying microsoft to license proper SMB, like other companies do (like EMC, for example, which uses licensed microsoft code in its enterprise storage devices for SMB connectivity). Samba wasn't "better" than SMBX it's just that when your host is using samba and your client is using samba, they're both broken and stupid in the same ways and they work together well.Īctually, lemme amend that. ![]() That doesn't actually help you or anyone else in that situation, obvs, but it's the simple truth. ![]() Any problems between a samba host talking to an apple SMBX client are due to samba being a flaming dumpster fire. The use case apple was trying to address is their client talking to a genuine Microsoft SMB 2.x stack, and for that use case, apple's SMBX curb stomps samba into oblivion. Fix is up-thread.Īpple ditching samba for their own SMB implementation was the right play, since samba is a shambolic wreck of a project that only works remotely well when both the host and client are samba. The speed issues are likely related to the SMB signing setting that apple switched on in el cap. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |