Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?
jeremy_at_netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) writes:
> eggert_at_twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) writes:
>
> >On Wednesday, Sun announced Project Cascade, a product that will
> >support NT file, print, authentication, and directory services.
> >Cascade is based on AT&T's Advanced Server, which I've heard Auspex
> >also uses.
> >The same day, Oracle leaked info about Oracle 8i, which will include an
> >Internet File System (iFS) that runs atop an Oracle engine. (Formal
> >announcement Monday.)
> >These announcements didn't address one obvious question: what will be
> >these proprietary products' advantages over Samba running atop, say, Linux?
> >(Clearly Samba+Linux has a price advantage....)
>
> Well "project Cascade" right now is actually vaporware,
> as the announcements state "early access copies will be
> available within 60 days" - so I'd imagine a source code
> tape from AS/U just landed on some poor Sun engineer's desk :-).
Isn't this just the same AT&T code as used by "all the other UNIX vendors" (eg "Advanced server for Digital UNIX" et al)?
I paid for and ran the previous version of this on Digital UNIX (when it was called Pathworks v6 - based on NT 3.51 code, I think). After a while I dumped it and switched to samba.
Why...? Well PW6 was more like a virtual NT server running within UNIX, and was managed in exactly the same way as an NT server. I didn't find it easy to let people access the same files from unix and NT (eg access to your unix home directories from windows). I found it hard to manage compared to samba (perhaps a cultural thing) and also more flakey than samba (it crashed at least once losing all filesystem meta-info).
Graham Allan
Physics, university of Minnesota
Received on Tue Sep 15 1998 - 00:00:00 CDT