NFS Windows/Linux

[mikebw at bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)]

Glenn Burkhardt wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:

> > there are nfs servers for win 95, I think.  try FTP software and try
> > chameleon.

 GB> Yes, there are NFS servers for Win95.  We use Xlink, which
 GB> was the least  expensive.  I've also tried NCD's NFS server,
 GB> which is just now out in a new edition.  

 GB> Beware - these products are not necessarily very robust. 
 GB> Actually, I'm not sure if it's the products or Microsoft's
 GB> TCP/IP implementation.  I've not been able to use 'tar' to
 GB> backup an entire disk to tape with either Xlink or NCD. 
 GB> Win95 crashes.

 GB> If you have Linux, do consider SAMBA, and mount the Win95
 GB> disk with 'smbfs'. 

 GB> Also, I've heard that Hummingbird has the best NFS product,
 GB> but I have no  experience with it.

I've watched a number of replies on this thread, and I really have to emphasize
my original advice: use smbfs.

NFS is an inherently bad protocol.  It depends upon all sorts of oddball things
that make juggling look easy.  There is no freeware NFS implementation for
Windows that I know about, and no one has yet mentioned one.  Even if you do
buy NFS for Windows, it will eat a lot of memory and resources on the Windows
side where these are scarce.  In addition, every Windows client will require an
expensive and potentially complicated and unreliable installation.

On the other hand, Linux smbfs will provide direct access to the native
networking which comes included with Windows for Workgroups and Windows 95.  It
puts the resource burden on the Linux side, which is better equipped to handle
it.  It introduces far fewer complexities, especially involving security, than
NFS.  And, of course, it is free.
 
-- Mike