[nycbug-talk] [Fwd: Security Threat Watch 028]

[Pete Wright]

Bob Ippolito wrote:

>
> 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  just
>>>>> 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".

couple things then i gotta work ;)  i don't rely on smb.  sorry if it 
came out like that.  frankly i use the best tool for the job at hand.  
nine times outta ten it's nfs.
   
    now, do i run a "pure" apple shop.  no, aside from home users and 
apple corp. i can't think of any apple only shops.   in fact i would 
argue that it would be a bad thing to rely on a single technology/vendor 
for anything.  thank god steve figured that out and let's me mix and 
match all sorts of crazy things like smb/nfs/sneaker-net(that's my 
favorite)/afp to get things working.
    from what i've seen working at various places in the city is that 
people are using OSX on the desktop and building a cheap linux/bsd 
fileservers for storage.  it works, takes less than a day to implement 
and everyone is happy.  is it ideal?  no.  thank god, otherwise i'd 
prolly be outta work ;^)

>
>>>> sure, but its also a very chatty protocol, which is enough to  
>>>> generally
>>>> 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:
>>
>>
>> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/mac/Networking/Networking 
>> -21.html
>
>
> TCP/IP / ZeroConf / Rendezvous / LDAP takes the place of AppleTalk.
>
which one is it by default?  i'm honestly interested.  i was under the 
assumption that DDP("AppleTalk") was being used when i enable 
"AppleTalk" in the OSX controll panel.  how else would OSX clients be 
able to play with OS 8/9 clients and vice-versa?

>>> 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.
>
yea i know i was.  still think it's interesting tho...


-p

-- 
~~~oO00Oo~~~
Pete Wright
pete at nomadlogic.org
www.nomadlogic.org/~pete