Subject: Commercial alternative to Netatalk?

From: "Ivan Quintero" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 09:20:30 PDT

Is there a comparable, commercial alternative to Netatalk? It seems that the 
software is still a work in progress, with users having to modify the source 
code to make it work as expected.

I would like to know if there are some proven, commercial alternatives that 
actually work the way you expect them to work out of the box.

Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

---

From: "Daniel E. Lautenschleger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:37:54 -0500 (CDT)

I've heard of a program called KA-Share (or something like that) is
supposed to work quite well.

Daniel E. Lautenschleger
University of Wisconsin
R.M. Bock Laboratories
Network Administrator and Computer Support
[email-masked]
608.262.3403

---

From: John Hulley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 17:53:37 +0100

> supposed to work quite well.

Yea, its by a company called Xinet, used as part of their pre-press but
you can buy just the appleshare server.

Thats what we use now with an active user population of around 700 people,
since I've put it in the number of file server related support requests 
have reduced substantially.

I'd have liked to kept using netatalk but it was becoming increasingly
impractical.

  -- john.

-- 
John Hulley, Network Admin, Royal College of Art, Kensington Gore, London
 mailto:[email-masked]  | mailto:[email-masked]   | mailto:[email-masked] 
 http://www.rca.ac.uk/ | http://world.std.com/~wjh/ | http://www.acm.org/

---

From: "Scott R. Every" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:55:19 -0400

I tried that for solaris...their licensing is ridiculous.  you can't move 
it to another server w/o buying a support contract.

IMHO, they screwed us over so we moved back to netatalk.
email me direct for details....

s

--On Thursday, June 1, 2000 11:37 AM -0500 "Daniel E. Lautenschleger" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Is there a comparable, commercial alternative to Netatalk? It seems that
>> the  software is still a work in progress, with users having to modify
>> the source  code to make it work as expected.
>>
>> I would like to know if there are some proven, commercial alternatives
>> that  actually work the way you expect them to work out of the box.
>>
>> Thank you.

--
Scott R. Every - mailto:[email-masked]
EMJ Internet - http://www.emji.net
voice : 1-888-258-8959  fax : 1-919-363-4425

---

From: "R. Michael Stephens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:13:01 -0500

A company called Syntax makes a Solaris (and other UNIX platforms)
product which does
SMB, Novell, and Apple Talk.  It is a bit pricey however.  We use it for
the Novell emulation.

As we use DFS we found that their early DFS/DCE integration was not what
we wanted.  Initially there
were very poor tools for mass administration, pretty good webtools but
no good way to handle 1000's of
users in batch.  I understand that things have improved in those areas.

Mike Stephens

-- 
R. Michael Stephens            Systems Software Specialist   
VUspace Project              Technical Infrastructure Team
Academic Computing & Info. Systems,  Vanderbilt University
Nashville TN. USA [email-masked] 615.343.8780

---

From: "Michael R. Jinks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:22:28 -0500

The shop I just left used KAshare, it's pricey and buggy.  We dropped it
for the DAVE Mac->Samba client, actually.  It had problems with failing to
de-register dropped connections which would then linger indefinitely, 
eventually resulting in a denial of service for new connections requiring a
manual restart of the service when the number of stale connections exceeded
the max we were licensed for -- typical "licensing over functionality" 
garbage one associates with commercialware.

Later when we faced a situation where smb drive sharing couldn't be made to
work for one situation, we bucked management into letting us use NetAtalk and
saw dramatic performance increases with (obviously) no licensing hassles.
Yes it took a little dinking to get working, but KAshare took lots of dinking
and never did work perfectly.

You choose.

-m

-- 
Michael Jinks, IB
Systems Administrator, Chicago Center for Computational Psychology
finger [email-masked] for public key
A guiding voice for all humanity: http://www.yellow5.com/pokey/

---

From: Ron Chmara <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 16:57:54 -0700

Er... so far, the options noted fail to run on the standard platform
for inexpensive *nix serving. Xinet refuses to support FreeBSD or
Linux ports.

Helios Ethershare, however, runs on Linux X86, so you don't
have to waste good money on Solaris if you don't want to.

http://www.helios.de/helios_S/platforms.html

-Bop

--
Brought to you from boop!, the dual boot Linux/Win95 Compaq Presario 1625
laptop, currently running RedHat 6.1. Your bopping may vary.

---

From: Patrik Schindler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:49:11 +0200

At 9:20 Uhr -0700 01.06.2000, Ivan Quintero wrote:

>Is there a comparable, commercial alternative to Netatalk?

I only know of Helios Ethershare (www.helios.de).
+ Aliases work as expected
+ Permissions could be set independly to unix side
+ fast
+ Very fine administration tool from the Mac side of life for users and printers
- VERY expensive (even bugfixes cost a lot of money)
- is a memory hog if you have many users
- support is bad (and expensive, to my knowledge)
- even they have bugs ;-)

:wq! PoC

---

From: Harry Zink/Netatalk List <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:13:27 -0700

> you can buy just the appleshare server.

K/A Share.

Does it run under Linux?

Harry

---

From: "Michael R. Jinks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:43:20 -0500

It didn't as of several months ago.

-m

---

From: Harry Zink/Netatalk List <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:10:05 -0700

> It didn't as of several months ago.

Bummer - I guess it's not an alternative to those running Linux, then.

Harry