[nycbug-talk] [Fwd: Security Threat Watch 028]
Tue May 11 16:06:50 EDT 2004
On May 11, 2004, at 4:50 PM, Pete Wright wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>> If you're an OS X shop that forces everyone into using SMB, you're
>>>> making your life more difficult.
> yea i disagree here, sorry.
Obviously, it's hard to say that the time you've invested in making
sure that only this more "open" protocol is supported hasn't bought you
more than resource fork ugliness, mysterious long file transfer
interruptions, filename handling peculiarities, and permission issues.
Most of these things can probably be worked around, but that takes time
that would've probably been better spent leaving things to AFP for an
"OS X shop".
>>> sure, but its also a very chatty protocol, which is enough to
>>> steer me away from it.
>> Are you sure you're not talking about AppleTalk, the network layer
>> that AFP doesn't depend on or even typically use in OS X?
> so what does OS X use now on the "network" layer?
> here's an interesting link regarding AppleTalk and the OSI layers:
TCP/IP / ZeroConf / Rendezvous / LDAP takes the place of AppleTalk.
>> Even if it *were* particularly chatty, the protocol was originally
>> designed a long time ago. Could it even have a remotely possible
>> chance of bogging down your 100mbit or faster ethernet?
> yes, yes it can. it's happend to me a couple times actually.
> i've spent far too much time trying to debug AppleTalk problems during
> the OS8/9 days to even go back to that situation. now i'm really
> curious tho, i'd like to see some comparisons between afp over
> appletalk vs. non-appletalk. does it run as quickly, what about the
> overhead etc...
You're talking about AppleTalk again, I was talking about AFP. It's
well known that AppleTalk is indeed chatty, but I haven't heard anyone
ever say that same of AFP.
More information about the talk