Re: flexfax: Hylafax future (SAMBA)

[Domain Administrator <hostmaster@mhsc.com>]

Nor could I <GRIN>

Terry Dwyer 61 8 9491 5161 wrote:
> 
> I couldn't resist replying to this...
> 
> On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Anthony Green wrote:

> > > | Fortunately, Samba is fairly easy. And it's considerably more secure
> > > | than the standard Microsoft based servers, based on my discussions
> > > | with network security consultants. I mean, keeping people's passwords
> > > | on line in a readable format is not my idea of wise....
> 
> I thoroughly agree with this paragraph.
> 
> > >
> > > Fully seconded. Those who have never used Samba will probably have some
> > > hesitation looking at yet another package for the first time. But it's
> > > far more simple than setting up Hylafax, for example. And it seems to
> > > work out of the box for almost all Unix flavours, and provides
> > > unparalleled robustness at the client end.
> 
> This paragraph is accurate.  Samba _is_ easy to setup compared to hylafax
> and an uncooperative modem.   I am not knocking hylafax in any way, just
> my modem.

With very little practice, and a gcc compiler, you can setup a Samba
server in less than 4 hours, including the download. You can either run
it behind tcp_wrappers (in inetd) or use the tcp_wrappers-like
host.allow/deny features, on a per share basis. My gateway has two Samba
shares available outside the domain, but only if you are in a domain
which is allowed. The other shares require you to be part of the
mhsc.com domain. Samba can also read hosts.equiv .

> > Ive watched the discussion on the windows client / printing thing .. and
> > am pretty much against using samba to achieve this ...
> 
> Anyone using unix or a unix clone with Windows machines would probably
> have samba installed anyway.  I don't know about Linux, but FreeBSD users
> can't mount a FreeBSD filesystem on their Win[3.11|95|NT] machines without
> samba.

Actually, with WinNTws, I use NT's LPR to connect directly with my LPRng
spools. I do not use Samba for that. However, this will not work for
Win95 because there is no LPR support for that OS, built-in.

> > Mainly becuase if you want to install HylaFAX its pretty much .. make sure
> > you have gs installed plus the fonts and go for it .. pretty straight forward.
> 
> As I said before, it's likely that a large percentage of unix users with
> Win95 machines would already have samba installed.  Those who don't
> probably don't know how easy it is to install and get running.

Or their orgs have a problem with not being able to write big checks to
some other corp. In that case, MHSC.COM will be more than happy to give
them a copy, and set it up, and cash the check <grin>.

> > Now while the addition of a samba server seems straight forward, its like
> > adding *another* full package to the system .. ie. not a helper package.
> > Adding samba and the configuration that goes along with it is like setting
> > up another hylafax server ... it has its own problems, compatibility or
> > otherwise and more importantly .. Hylfax would rely heavily on Samba for
> > this particular functionality ... If something changes in Samba .. and breaks
> > HylaFAX then there not much you can do other than change HylaFAX ...
> 
> Then write to the samba mailing list and report it as a bug.  The guys
> who develop samba are not in the business of removing features - they
> keep adding them.  They _will_ respond to a legitimate bug report.

Yep, absolutely!

> >From the above, I'd guess you haven't had a lot to do with samba.
> I'd be more inclined to think that the next release of Windows would be
> more likely to break something than samba.  Where would you be then? No
> source code - no help diagnosing the problem from Microsoft and no
> alternative method of doing the job.

Actually, we are already getting early reports that the Win98 beta is
breaking stuff all over the place. Once yet again they are changing the
Domain login sequence. I guess the Samba Team was getting too close to
figuring it out <grin>. Actually, MS makes some changes to CIFS
everytime they release a new major version of their OS. So far, with the
exception of the Domain login problem (unpublished, proprietary), the
Samba Team has been pretty successful in meeting the challenges.

> > While the other road of making the dll's or wotever talk to hylafax properly
> > is the more difficult solution .. I think its the way to go with this type
> > of problem if it is implemented with HylaFAX...
> 
> Dont rely on Microsoft's API remaining static.  Just have a look at the
> changes file for Speak Freely (for Win95).  The guy who wrote that has
> very little that's good to say about MS being consistent with their C
> library calls.

Since the C v3.4 compiler that MS originally bought from Lattice, every
new version compiler, as well as every new version OS, has required
source file change/recompile in order to keep working. This includes
every version of DOS, Windows, OS/2, WinNT, and Win95. MS keeps changing
things because it works for them. This has always been true. In a sense,
this is true for Unix also, albeit at a lower frequency. Unix changes
for technical reasons and MS changes for marketing whimsey.