Vista and file sharing.....

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: bsobel
Ok that was hillarious. But be carefull, no need to feed the troll, he'll keep yapping and be gone soon.

He was 100% wrong too! Why don't you attack him?

Unlike your made up stories and now hillarious back peddling there was nothing unfactual in his post:

Suggesting to use FTP for file sharing on a home network is simply ridiculous. It's a lot more complicated setting up an ftp server (i'd only suggest glftpd or ioftpd) and configuring client machines with ftp clients (flashfxp) than just learning how to share files properly.

Lets see if you get *any* one else to agree with you, so far no one believes this is easier than using the built in sharing in Windows.

And if FTP has error correction, why do scene release groups use sfv? Because FTP/FXP transfers are notorious for corrupting and using a server-side integrity check is essential. Otherwise, one corrupted rar can spread unchecked to dozens of servers.

This is also true. If you believe its not, please go RE-READ the darn RFC I referenced. You making up facts does not make them true, as much as you'd like it to.

Here's what I did..

Double click on network. Double click on Sophie's computer. Double click on her shared folder. Enter a PW. Drag. Let go of mouse button. Done. Took about 8 seconds.
Looks like you're about 30 minutes slower.

If this is what your refering to as wrong, it was based on your timeline. No matter, lets use your 5 minute timeline. He's still 4 minutes 52 seconds faster.

Bill

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: nerp
Here's what I did..

Double click on network. Double click on Sophie's computer. Double click on her shared folder. Enter a PW. Drag. Let go of mouse button. Done. Took about 8 seconds.

Just curious...

What if Sophie wants to transfer files to/from work - not just the 'other room'?

Then she either e-mails them to herself or carries them on a USB stick. If she needs to access remote shares, we're using a VPN.

FTP is unreliable and insecure. It also requires using 3rd party software, which sucks, IMHO. And home NAT devices and such often don't like to play with PASSV, etc. FTP can be a giant can of worms when other built in options are much more elegant, simple, reliable and secure.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

A third party security account manager that could be accessed by a common super user would be nice for workgroup management. Does such a thing exist?

You mean a central authentication source like AD?

I guess you could compare it to active directory. Just a compact version that can run on one PC. There's third party programs that allow users to share Outlook calendars and folders, etc. without the expense of Exchange.

What most (home) users wind up doing is enabling the guest account on all pc's and having permissions everyone/full control. Might as well be using FAT32 volumes too! :Q I guess it's OK for a mini lan and yes people hate passwords.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Nothinman

A third party security account manager that could be accessed by a common super user would be nice for workgroup management. Does such a thing exist?

You mean a central authentication source like AD?

I guess you could compare it to active directory. Just a compact version that can run on one PC. There's third party programs that allow users to share Outlook calendars and folders, etc. without the expense of Exchange.

What most (home) users wind up doing is enabling the guest account on all pc's and having permissions everyone/full control. Might as well be using FAT32 volumes too! :Q I guess it's OK for a mini lan and yes people hate passwords.

Castle was the code name for the Vista feature that did just this, it was a distributed P2P version of AD. Hopefully it makes it into Vienna (it was one of the features I was hoping would get to final, it solves many of the issues behind this thread)

Bill

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Nothinman

A third party security account manager that could be accessed by a common super user would be nice for workgroup management. Does such a thing exist?

You mean a central authentication source like AD?

I guess you could compare it to active directory. Just a compact version that can run on one PC. There's third party programs that allow users to share Outlook calendars and folders, etc. without the expense of Exchange.

What most (home) users wind up doing is enabling the guest account on all pc's and having permissions everyone/full control. Might as well be using FAT32 volumes too! :Q I guess it's OK for a mini lan and yes people hate passwords.

Castle was the code name for the Vista feature that did just this, it was a distributed P2P version of AD. Hopefully it makes it into Vienna (it was one of the features I was hoping would get to final, it solves many of the issues behind this thread)

Bill

Castling sounded cool, I wish it had made it into Vista.

 

[VinDSL]

Heh!

I do declare... we're turning this 'Rant' into a pretty informative thread!

I know, I know...

You wouldn't have a problem with anger if everyone would stop pissing you off, right?

BTW, you're not buying that 8-second 'story', are you?

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Heh!

I do declare... we're turning this 'Rant' into a pretty informative thread!

I know, I know...

You wouldn't have a problem with anger if everyone would stop pissing you off, right?

BTW, you're not buying that 8-second 'story', are you?

What's so difficult to believe about it?
Do you seriously use FTP for all your networking needs? Have you never worked on a corporate network with mapped drives? We do terabytes of transfers through SMB daily with no problems.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Heh!

I do declare... we're turning this 'Rant' into a pretty informative thread!

I know, I know...

You wouldn't have a problem with anger if everyone would stop pissing you off, right?

BTW, you're not buying that 8-second 'story', are you?

Quoted for review.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Castle was the code name for the Vista feature that did just this, it was a distributed P2P version of AD.

Microsoft AD/NT (SAM) didn't make it into Vista?!?!?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: bsobel
Castle was the code name for the Vista feature that did just this, it was a distributed P2P version of AD.

Microsoft AD/NT (SAM) didn't make it into Vista?!?!?

Castle was the code name for the Vista feature that did just this, it was a distributed P2P version of AD

Learn to read the *full* post before responding, you might learn something.

Bill

P.s. Castle: "Another planned feature in Windows Vista would have taken advantage of peer-to-peer technology to provide a new type of domain-like networking setup known as a Castle, but this did not make it into the release version. Castle would have made it possible to have an identification service, which provides user authentication, for all members on the network, without a centralized server. It would have allowed user credentials to propagate across the peer-to-peer network, making them more suitable for a home network"

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: loup garou
Do you seriously use FTP for all your networking needs?

No, I do not - I hate FTP!

However, I DO use it for transferring large files or large amounts of files between PCs - haven't found anything better, which is why it's still around.

At the pace that technology moves, don't you find it curious that FTP is still in such wide use?

It's been around longer than PCs...

 

[Nothinman]

Learn to read the *full* post before responding, you might learn something.

He'd have to stop knowing that he's right before he'd open his mind and learn something.

At the pace that technology moves, don't you find it curious that FTP is still in such wide use?

No, just like HTTP and SMTP it's still around because it's extremely simple (i.e. no complicated things like data integrity checking) and was grandfathered in when the Internet started becoming popular.

 

[bsobel]

don't you find it curious that FTP is still in such wide use?

No more so that TCP/IP being in wide use.

 

[Tom]

Why does having the same usernames and passwords on different machines make file sharing better or easier ?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Tom
Why does having the same usernames and passwords on different machines make file sharing better or easier ?

Windows will attempt to use your current credentials on that other box, so if your username and password matches the connection can be seemless. If not, you'll have to provide login credentials which (depending on the version of windows, such as home) may not be saved between sessions.

Bill

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: htne

Originally posted by: VinDSL

2. FTP offers error CORRECTION, other protocols simply offer error detection. FTP will keep resending until it gets it right! [/list]

I can guarantee, if you're passing BIG files across machines using a non-error correcting protocol, you WILL have errors...

Don't believe me?

Move a 1 GB ZIP file across machines using something other than FTP, and test it for integrity - let me know what it says...

I move very large files (.iso and .img files, images of entire single layer DVDs) up to 4.7 gigabytes in size. I move them across my home network (wired gigabit ethernet), using cut-and-paste in Windows Explorer. I have 3 systems all running Windows XP, all with gigabit ethernet. For the first few months, I kept checking the images afterward with .md5 and .shasum integrity checking. None were ever corrupted. That's right, I checked probably 100, with zero errors, and then quit checking. You do not know what you are talking about.

I used to have errors, when Windows File Sharing ran using NetBUEI, directly over the ethernet. If an ethernet frame got corrupted, and it wasn't detected by the ethernet frame checksum (possible, however unlikely), then it would copy corrupt data.

Now that Windows File Sharing runs on top of a TCP/IP layer, it seems to have gotten much more reliable, and I haven't had any problems.

If you're paranoid, use QuickPAR to generate some PAR2 error-correction files, and ship them over with the big file you copy, and verify/repair the file at the destination.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
What most (home) users wind up doing is enabling the guest account on all pc's and having permissions everyone/full control. Might as well be using FAT32 volumes too! :Q I guess it's OK for a mini lan and yes people hate passwords.

Hey now... I still use FAT32 volumes on my main rig, it seems less troublesome from many perspectives than NTFS does. I also multi-boot with Win98se too. I do have an NTFS volume to use for DVD ripping though.

 

[bsobel]

Now that Windows File Sharing runs on top of a TCP/IP layer, it seems to have gotten much more reliable, and I haven't had any problems.

And in most cases the data is signed....