Recoiledsnake writes 'The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server will and replace it with Apple's own tools for Windows file sharing and network directory services. In both Mac OS X Server and client editions, Samba enables Macs to share files with Windows clients on the network and access Windows file servers. It has also later allowed Mac OS X Server to work as an NT Domain Controller to manage network accounts and make roaming profiles and home directories available to Windows PC users. However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. Apple is now said to be recommending Active Directory to users who are still dependent upon the older NT Domain Controller network directory services. Apple has to GCC and started looking at other options like LLVM because of GCC's switch to GPLv3.'
Fix for a security issue with Samba CVE-2015-0240 Minor bug fixes NAS OS version 4.1.5.14 Improve Samba performance NAS OS version 4.1.5.13 Improve the user experience of remote access NAS OS version 4.1.5.12 Fix security issue NAS OS version 4.1.5.10 Improve the stability of remote access ×. Samba allows non-Windows operating systems, like GNU/Linux or Mac OS X, to share network shared folders, files, and printers with Windows operating system. The newly discovered remote code execution vulnerability ( CVE-2017-7494 ) affects all versions newer than Samba 3.5.0 that was released on March 1, 2010.
Yeah, that was my first reaction as well. The summary is flat out wrong the way it is worded, but there are legitimate licensing issues.
The problem is with the iPhone, not OS X (yet). If you distribute binaries covered by the GPLv3 on a device, the license requires you to provide any signing keys, or other information/tools required to run modified versions of the software on the device. The iPhone requires all applications to be signed, and does not provide signing keys to it's users, thus they can't use GPLv3 software (like samba) on iOS.
They probably figure it is easier to maintain a single SMB/CIFS implementation rather than two, so they are ditching it on OS X as well (or they have other plans for OS X that we are not aware of yet). The problem is with the iPhone, not OS X (yet). If you distribute binaries covered by the GPLv3 on a device, the license requires you to provide any signing keys, or other information/tools required to run modified versions of the software on the device. The iPhone requires all applications to be signed, and does not provide signing keys to it's users, thus they can't use GPLv3 software (like samba) on iOS. Who wants to run Samba on their iPhone? I mean, a lot of people, of course.
But for the mainstream user who will not jailbreak, this is not even that interesting. However, if they should expect you to run iOS on your desktop, suddenly it becomes relevant. This is just one of many preludes to the eventual death of OSX and its replacement with iOS. OSX may continue to exist as a workstation OS, but I doubt it, because who takes OSX seriously in the enterprise? It's something you have forced upon you, not something you add to your network on purpose.
They probably figure it is easier to maintain a single SMB/CIFS implementation rather than two, so they are ditching it on OS X as well (or they have other plans for OS X that we are not aware of yet). Just about all of the binaries in /System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering, either by the user or Eve trying to installing a rootkit. They probably don't want to turn over the signing keys for those, because they definitely don't want Eve patching their system, and as far as Apple engineers are concerned /System should have a big sticker on it reading 'No user serviceable parts inside.' No, it doesn't. That's a ridiculous assertion presented without any evidence or reason. That's sortof disingenuous, GPL has always been a Hobson's choice.
You can always 'sell' a piece of GPL software, but unless you are the original rights holder the GPL has the practical effect of ruining any mechanism for monetizing the software. If any distribution of the software requires the source code be included, it destroys the competitive advantage of the seller in a market and makes it impossible to prevent fre. 'Do you want to give a justification of why you are willing to keep using the GPL even though it means companies like Apple are not willing to use your software?' Apple have never been a major contributor to Samba.
Other companies like Google, IBM, Cisco, Symantec (and many other NAS vendors and OEM's) are happy to contribute and use Samba under GPL (both v2 and v3), so the GPL is still a vital tool to share development costs between companies who want to.contribute., not just use. IMHO Apple want to keep their ability to sue over software patents, which the GPL is designed to make difficult. If you've been following the news recently I hope you see why this is becoming more and more important for Free Software code.
Sort of off-topic, but software patents really are a threat to all software engineers and they don't distinguish between open source or proprietary code:-(. So, a couple interesting things related to CIFS came to light not long ago.
The first was playing with Macs. They suck at it, horrible performance. In 10.4 they couldn't even talk to the NetApp with CIFS at all, they could talk to Windows servers but slowly. NFS worked but it was a disaster trying to get permissions to work right.
We figured this was in part because they use Samba which is not necessarily the fastest thing out there, and was originally designed for reverse engineering SMB, not a reference CIFS implementation like the NetApp. Is NetApp marketing really this good? Firstly - the Mac client is written by Apple and is called smbfs, it's not Samba at all.
It is Open Source code, released by Apple in Darwin. I know the engineers who write it, and they're really good and have been working on it for a while, so I'm sure it's gotten better since you tried it.
Secondly, 'a reference CIFS implementation like the NetApp.' NetApps CIFS implementation was written well after Samba, with some judicious peeks at the Samba code in order to implement the hard stuff (this was before Microsoft released their docs). That's ok, that's one of the reasons the Samba code is out there, so people can learn from it.
As for being 'a reference CIFS implementation'. Just try running Samba's smbtorture4 test suite against NetApp's 'a reference CIFS implementation' to discover how much of a 'reference' they actually implemented.
No it is more in testing. What I find is this: Windows to Windows: Wire speed. Windows to NetApp: Wire speed. Windows to (current) Linux: Wire speed. MacOS to NetApp: Slow. MacOS to Windows: Slow.
MacOS with ADmitMac to NetApp: Wire speed. MacOS with ADmitMac to Windows: Wire speed. This is with current OS 10.6.
With older MacOS it didn't work with the NetApp at all. Like it or not, this is what my testing indicates, and my only conclusion can be that Apple either is using code that is bad with CIFS, or that they are making it slow on purpose. Like I said, Thursby (who makes ADmitMac) has a grade-A CIFS client and we license their software in part because of it. It prevents Apple using the software commercially within its business methods and business strategy. Apple is a known 'patents at dawn' company. That does not fit the GPLv3 mutual assured destruction patent clauses.
So while other companies can use GPLv3 commercially, Apple cannot do so. It will be in violation of the license the next time it tries to lob a patent nuke which is something it does on a regular basis. Unfortunately, Apple is not alone here.
Nearly all big companies are in the same position and they will follow suit. While I understand RMS aims and ideas here, that is really not the way. GPL should not be a replacement for court, legislation and enforcement. 'However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. ' Nothing in the GPLv3 prohibits using the software commercially, unless that means taking software that others wrote and released and making it unfree.
As for all the posters who will say now that the GPL is too restrictive and actually has nothing to do with freedom - yes it restricts the freedom of the person distributing the software in either its original or a changed version but only exactly to the extent necessary to guarantee that the person who receives the software gets the same extent of freedom as the original software allowed. The freedom to take other people's freedom away is certainly some kind of freedom, but probably not the kind that the creators of Samba wanted to promote. It is actually an intended consequence of the GPL to keep companies that want to distribute software in a restricted way (e.g. On 'locked' phones where they control what you can install, and probably soon enough on 'locked computers' under the pretense of security) from doing this with GPLed software. That Apple cannot use the software for such purposes puts free software and hardware at an advantage and increases the cost for Apple of taking away people's freedom.
Presumably, the developers that put their code under the GPL wanted exactly that. Nothing in the GPLv3 prohibits using the software commercially, unless that means taking software that others wrote and released and making it unfree. What does DRM and keys have to do with the source code? If you take a binary created by GPL'ed code and then sign in with a key, what does that have to do with the original source? How is that different that compiling a binary, saving it in a password projected zip file? If you contribute any changes made to the actual code the binary is based on, shouldn't that be enough? I would argue that GPLV3 is a violation of copyright law.
I should be free to take GPL'ed code, compile it into a binary, burn i. I would argue that how the binary is packaged is of no business to the original copyright lowers and it is an overreach of their rights under copyright law. I should be allowed to package it how I see fit as long as I contribute any source code changes needed to compile the same binary. You are completely bound by the wishes of the author if you want them to give you the right to distribute their works.
Remember you have no innate right to distribute someone else's copyrighted works no matter how much you stomp your feet about it. If you take a binary created by GPL'ed code and then sign in with a key, what does that have to do with the original source?
AFAIK, the anti-TIVOization clause in GPLv3 means that if, say, OS X were to run only signed Samba binaries, anyone should be able to get the signing keys just if they ask nicely. The sprit of GPLv3 is that not only you must get the sources, but you must also have a way of modifying the software and getting it to run as a replacement. On OS X for example it's currently impossible to replace the bundled Samba component and have OS X recognize it as a valid system component (due to signing). It is OK as far as GPLv2 is concerned, but not for GPLv3. I just don't get the argument about GPLv3 somehow being contrary to the U.S.
Copyright Law. Do remember that GPLv3 is a license: it gives you extra rights that you otherwise don't have as they by default remain with the copyright holder. If you don't like the terms: do as Apple did, don't use it. That's all there is to it. Personally, I think Apple is trying to totally close their software and hardware ecosystems so only they can provide software, or are the gatekeeper of all software, that will run on any Apple device.
The only way to stop this is by voting with our pocketbooks! After this sort of behavior, I am boycotting Apple products like I am Sony's.
If I purchase something, I own it and therefor have the right to use it as I see fit, not as someone else does. The way Apple wants it to work is that you are in effect leasing from them. You don't own it, and are constrained with what you can do with/to it. Pretty much everyone working on core Mac OS X components has a.BSD background - mostly former FreeBSD developers who were hired by Apple. All major BSDs are reluctant to even allow GPLv2 in their base system. They all don't like the whole copyleft concept at all. GPLv3 is completely forbidden in the base installation.
Apple's Darwin team has a BSD culture which is apparent that Apple itself is moving away from the LGPL-like 'Apple Public Source License' to the BSDL-like Apache License 2 for Apple's own newer FOSS projects like libdispatch. GPLv3's anti-TIVO-ization clause was just the last nail in the coffin of Apple's GPL endorsement. However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially. That should be: However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially in the way they want to use it.
On the iPhone and iPad, Apple wants the device itself to be closed, which means the user is not allowed to install operating system components. Samba is an operating system component.
If Apple allowed the end user to replace it, then jailbreaking would be as easy as replacing Samba with a hacked version, then using Samba from within any application. On MacOS X, no problem; you may replace Samba as much as you like; if it doesn't work, it's your problem obviously. So on iDevices, Apple cannot use GPL v3 code commercially the way they want to use it. So they can't use it.
At that point it's obviously better to have one code base and replace it on MacOS X as well. The more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially This is a gross mis-representation of GPLv3, and obfuscates the real basis of argument that Apple may have in conforming to the licensing terms. Why the innuendo? Why not state exactly the thing you are alluding to?
Because it's not some sort of horrible thing. Not nearly as bad as the imaginary unstated thing could be. The problem isn't the copyright effects, it's the patent effects. Apple has no problem making source code available (in fact, they are highly active in the open source world), because there's no fear of having to give up the copyright to software they either can't or simply don't want to give up. But patents have no such easy way to pa.
Devil's advocate here: The downside to the GPL3 is that companies notice one product or piece of code with the v3 license, then their legal team gets scared, throws the baby out with the bathwater and starts over with a closed source product. I have known one business which produced embedded controllers move from Linux to Windows CE just because their legal eagles feared that the GPL v3.x would force them to give up their trade secrets of some manufacturing methods to any customers that asked. All and all, I'd would say the GPL v2 is/was the best balance between being able to do what one wanted and redistributing, versus keeping code available for subsequent users. GPL v3 was made with good intentions, but instead of the intended outcome of killing DRM and dealing with patents, it has gotten some businesses to completely dump F/OSS completely and move to closed source systems. You're either for personal freedom or you're not. Civil rights stop me from enslaving people, therefore I'm not free.
If I release some 'free software', then someone else comes along and entangles it with their own proprietary software and adds their own restrictions, then the part that is my contribution is no longer free. The software itself is not free, in the same way that a slave is not free. The software has been enslaved.
So allowing people to do whatever they want to my software is contrary to my software's freedom. The GPLv2 allowed them to do an end run where you could modify and use the software, but never on the device that it was distributed on. This was corrected in GPLv3, and control-freak assholes are having a problem with it. It's not just control freaks that have a problem with it. It's also security-conscious engineering teams. Those bits of GPLv3 betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the need for proper code signing.
First of all, there is no good way to prevent unsigned virus code from running without preventing unsigned user code from running on a device. The last thing you want is a news story talking about how your phone has been compromised by a virus that spreads across the cell network by SMS and has turned your entire ecosystem into the cell phone equivalent of WinZombies. This goes triply for daemons like Samba, which represent prime attack vectors into home and corporate computers, and thus are in desperate need of signature checks. Unfortunately, any OS vendor that wants to deploy Samba cannot require that it be signed by a proper, valid code signing cert because those cost money, and would represent an additional restriction on the end user's ability to recompile Samba and run the new version.
This makes the GPLv3 fundamentally antithetical to proper security as written, at least by my reading. And I'm not the only one who interprets it this way. More to the point, you cannot create an arbitrarily open ecosystem that allows for anyone to get a code signing cert from anywhere, as this gives you no additional protection over not requiring signing. If you can get a free cert that allows you to run code on arbitrary hardware, then a a virus writer can, too. Thus, the infrastructure must inherently be designed so that third-party code can be authorized on a per-device basis. This is nontrivial, and costs money to maintain.
Yet the GPLv3 would require that such a service be free to use in order to comply with a strict reading of its terms. Clearly, this is an untenable position. In short, this isn't a knee jerk reaction by a bunch of control freaks.
Quite the opposite, really. The GPLv3 was a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction to a bunch of control freaks that had a negative impact on consumers. So although I understand why the GPL proponents want these clauses, in the end, they're doing a disservice to themselves and to the community by policies that effectively prevent the proper use of signed binaries. Is RMS completely ignorant of the fact that many of these projects received a lot of commercial support in the past and that Version 3 is basically a big middle finger directed at them?
Is he out to destroy the FOSS movement by alienating some of its largest contributors? No, RMS is neither ignorant nor is the GPLv3 harmful to business. The Free Software Foundation has always had the protection of user freedoms as its primary goal, and while the GPLv2 served that goal for a long time, there were certain loopholes that some companies were exploiting - loopholes that the GPLv3 corrected. Having the right to study and modify code is meaningless if your computer prevents you from running your modified code, and software patents could be used to deny you the right to redistribute your code. Corporations are as able as they have ever been to sell, sponsor, and benefit from software licensed under GPLv3; little has changed since the GPLv2.
Corporations that seek to maliciously exploit loopholes (TiVo) may have a problem, but most corporations do not do that and will be largely unaffected by the move. If you are granting your users the freedoms the GPL is designed to protect, then GPLv3 is not a problem.
![Apple Os X Cve-2017-7494 Samba Apple Os X Cve-2017-7494 Samba](http://digital.hmx.net/img/comp2/ppc/mac_mini/samba.png)
You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free. But it does seem reasonable that, if you're gonna take a 'free' product and resell it, you should share some of your profits with the product's original producers. The GPL has taken this attitude toward 'free' from the start. You can have it for free if you promise to pass it on to others on the same terms.
But if you want to grab someone else's work and make a profit from it, you have to buy it (and get a license to resell it). See, it's sort of a 'tit for tat' thing. If you want it to be free, you have to keep it free; if you want to be paid for it, you have to pay for it.
(For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, note that most GPL'd software is available from the authors with other licenses. The GPL doesn't preclude providing the software with other licenses. It basically just exists to guarantee that if you don't pay for the software, you can't charge others for it. But most of the authors are quite willing to give you a license to sell their software for profit, if you are willing to share those profits with the authors.). Those who release code under a BSD license know that down-stream users can take the code wholesale, or make modifications, and do with it what they will.
Those people aren't complaining about it. The only people who seem to make an issue out of it are people who haven't or wouldn't release code under a BSD license.
Licenses are essentially a religious debate at this point, so please pardon my analogy when I say that pretending there is a debate on the BSD license is like pretending their is a debate on ID vs Evolution. Only one side is interested in having a debate, and that means there is no debate. BSD isn't bad per se, but it allows a 'bad player' like Microsoft to modify standards in ways that break interoperability.
If you are attempting to write standards-compliant code, and you don't want that code to be used to sabotage the very standards you're trying to support, then the BSD's not for you. GPL cleverly prevents such a situation. It strikes a nice balance between commercial interests (ability to charge for products based on the code) and the ongoing freedom of the original writer to have the b. Free for whom? The GPL protects the.freedom of the code., not the freedom of developers. Hence the term free software. The BSD allows you to lock the code down, and release binaries only and so is not as good at protecting the freedom of the code.
I really can not fathom that this logic still eludes people. So many assume that it is about their own freedom and so misses the point of the GPL entirely. And besides, if you want to give freedom to developers, release as Public Domain for crying out loud.
If you want to pass on a version with additional restrictions on what they can do with the software, then no, you can't do that. 'Freedom' does not mean, and never has meant, that you can do whatever you want. The problem is that to allow that will inevitably force someone else to give up their own freedom to do whatever they want. You have to balance the freedoms.
And that's exactly what was said. The GPL prevents placing restrictions on other peoples freedom. A restriction to prevent further restrictions. You may not like how the GPL decided to balance freedom, but its approach is completely valid. I don't completely understand the problem here. The GPLv3 issues in this particular case shoot way over my head. But, the GPL isn't the problem.
WP7 isn't being supported by ZTE and other bulk low-to-mid-end OEMs because of it's licensing requirements(namely, money; and the fact that WP7 hasn't moved a lot of phones). H.264 is being cross licensed mostly due to patent AND compatibility issues. GPL isn't the core of this issue. Getting sued by the MPEG LA is. GPL is the solution. If you want your.
H.264 is being cross licensed mostly due to patent AND compatibility issues. GPL isn't the core of this issue.
Getting sued by the MPEG LA is. MPEG-LA can't sue you. Individual patent holders can - they're a licensing authority - they offer a bunch of patent licenses for a set fee to everyone. You are free to implement your own h.264 stuff and not license the patents from MPEG-LA, instead opting to license the patents individually from all the patent holders.
Of course, licensing that many patents is going. Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want. No, sir, you are confusing liberty with 'no charge' free. The BSD license is free as in beer. A proprietary software developer may take BSD licensed software and use it as the basis for a project of their own without sharing code in return. The users of his software have less liberty to the software's use.
That developer exchanges nothing of value for the code that he received. The GPL license is free as in liberty. Developers who wish to base products on existing GPL software must agree to maintain the liberty of the derived software's users to use the software with the same liberties that the developer did. This is an exchange of something of value: the developer contributes their own code in exchange for receiving the GPL code. GPL software is not intended to be free of charge to developers who wish to reuse it. Developers who choose the GPL software do not intend to provide their labor without charge to others who will not contribute in return.
The GPL promotes liberty, not freeloading. The GPL license is free as in liberty. Both the GPL and the BSD are free as in liberty, because you are given the code and permission and customize it to do what you want. In my opinion, the GPL is less free than the BSD license because my liberty becomes limited when I want to distribute my changes in the application to others.
With BSD, I'm given the liberty to license the software how I want and I'm given the liberty of not having to provide my source code to others. For a lot of the work that I do, that becomes a big deal - I can provide software or a service without having to worry about the extra effort required to release something as GPL. Calling these restrictions 'liberty,' however, is just Orwellian doublespeak. So it's 'orwellian' to insist that the people who receive my software, via you, have the same rights as you did, and can use altered versions of it freely in place of the versions you gave them? Man, you have a fucked up definition of 'orwellian.' Or perhaps standing up for the freedoms of others is simply antiquated to you. But then, I get the impression that control freaks don't like end-users having freedom, and thus the GPLv3 is inherently reprehensible to them.
Where all of you GPL-haters keep failing in this argument is that you want to deny rights to software makers. You have to understand that whoever wrote a piece of software owns copyright on it, and can distribute it how they see fit. If I write a piece of software, I'm free to take one of 3 basic distribution options relevant to the debate: 1) Keep it proprietary, give the code to nobody. Sell compiled versions for money, and/or license the source under NDA to others for money. 2) Give it away under a BSD license (or just make it Public Domain). Anyone can use my software for anything, commercial or not.
It's a gift to the world. 3) Give it away under a GPL license.
Anyone can use my software for anything, commercial or not. HOWEVER, I stipulate that if you make further enhancements to my code, if you then give the resulting binary to other parties, you are required to also give them a copy of your enhancements in source code form. None of the options are more or less moral than the others. Licensing code under the GPL does not steal anyone's liberties. It fails to provide you with a liberty you would get if the code were licensed under BSD, but in either case these rights are GRANTED to you by the COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
It's a gift either way, and you're saying by failing to give everyone a big enough gift, GPL authors are somehow stealing people's liberties. GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want. The GPL requires that whoever you give the code to - in source or binary form - is just as free to use the code as you were. The way you are 'more free' with the BSD is to make others less free, obviously you are more free if your right to swing your fist doesn't end at my nose. Being able to own slaves is a freedom for the slave holder.
Except we don't want those kinds of freedoms, because they make others less free. BSD makes Apple more free and OS X users less free than under the GPL.
The GPL may not be the absolute and total freedom, but it is the equal and fair freedom. If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as 'bad' as proprietary code.
GPL only restricts your ability to take freedom away from your end user. Yes, GPLes software is 'bad' for you if you are intending to take the freedoms from your end user. GPL is not 'bad' for the software's user in any way shape or form, only for those who would rather abuse copyright and derive monopoly profits from other people's charitable work (e.g. Apple from BSD). Do you seriously not get it?
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. And now even a semblance of a rational argument is gone and what you have left is hot air. GPL has nothing to do with freedom of expression (just like copyright, according to the US Supreme Court, has nothing to do with freedom of speech), and everything to do with building a hedge around the public domain. The robber barons stole our public domain by making the copyright terms practically infinite and applying obscene statutory damages to non-commercial violators. Licenses like GPL are legal hacks which help to restore the balance present in the original copyright legislation: creators get some VERY limited distribution monopoly, everyone else gets more and better software. The problem with your argument is that the developers of Samba would like to be able to buy a NAS or other hardware device that incorporates Samba and then upgrade it to the latest testing version or change other things about it even if the hardware manufacturer doesn't support it. That's the end of the story in terms of licensing, because no one else owns the Samba code.
The Samba developers wanted the ability to modify their own software when it's running on someone else's hardware that they paid money for, and I think that's a fairly reasonable request. Apple's response is basically 'Hey, nice code, but we don't really care about your interests and so we won't be using the new version.' Either way, Apple wasn't planning on letting people modify the version of CIFS they shipped, or contribute fixes back to the Samba tree, so no real loss there. Long story short, we learned something about Apple's ideology and nothing more. Either way, Apple wasn't planning on letting people modify the version of CIFS they shipped, or contribute fixes back to the Samba tree, so no real loss there.
Long story short, we learned something about Apple's ideology and nothing more. nabble.com: 'Apple has been updating and hardening a branch of the Open Group's DCE/RPC library. We'd decided to share these changes with the community at large and will continue to invest in modernizing and advancing this code base. The goal is to establish a common, authoritative DCE/RPC codebase that everyone can leverage or contribute to, under very liberal terms.
We have published Apple's contributions at www.dcerpc.org Please check out the web site for any more details. We are looking for someone to port it to the various Linux SMB implementations.
Regards, James Peach and George Colley Apple'. Only if for some reason your 'mix' includes a bunch of lock down designed to trap the user and control how they use whatever the software is installed on. What if the lock down is designed to keep malware off of the user's device and maintain its stability, and the user is OK with that?
I bought the iPhone because it is a controlled ecosystem. I don't want my cell phone rooted. I also like the controlled updates. I have a friend with an Android phone who had an update that bricked the device, and his carri.
Without that 'social agenda', there would be not Free Software. There would be no contributors because no one would care enough about the 'social agenda' to create a suitable framework where contributors feel free to add their contributions free from the fear that someone like Apple or Microsoft will come along and take unfair advantage of the work. This 'social agenda' stuff is just nonsense and FUD. This is about CONTRIBUTORS.
The GPL was created because corporations can't be trusted and CONTRIBUTORS became. From Jaguar days, when a Mac that went to sleep had to be rebooted to ever reconnect to a Windows share it happily saw before, to (Snow) Leopard when they simply won't connect at all most of the time, at home or at work, even with an IP address Those sound like client-side issues. The OS X SMB client isn't based on anything from Samba (given that it's a 'kernel extension', i.e. A loadable kernel module, basing it on GPLed code would probably be a bit tricky), it's based on the FreeBSD in-kernel SMB client (but has had a lot of additional work done on it). Switching the SMB server from Samba to something else wouldn't affect that.
Also false-Apple is switching away from GCC because it's clunky, slow, outdated, and the GCC team is hostile to Apple's extensions and does not want Apple's contributions-every developer I know has been very much looking forward to being able to drop GCC and use LLVM. I think it is a bit of both. Apple has stopped with gcc 4.2 while adding massive amounts of work to LLVM; they could probably have upgraded to a much later version from a technical point of view, but didn't want to for licensing reasons. On the other hand, LLVM is now reaching the point where it is superior to gcc in every respect (massively better compile times, much better error messages, all the compile time information available to the editor and much more) and allows compilation at runtime (great for OpenCL). And it seems that it has a much saner code base that can be improved much easier.
Hi Guys, We are currently trying to move all shares from old XServe running AFP to Windows 2008r2 using the SMB protocol. We are experiencing a problem with our users being unable to move / rename / delete folders and files on the server when connected via SMB from a Mac. It seems to be that when a folder is open or in use by another user, the file is locked and asks for Admin credentials to move or change the folder. We haven't been able to figure out a fix for the problem.
I was wondering if anyone else has stumbled across this problem or has a solution? This kind of happens randomly, sometimes I can rename a file even while it is open on another computer, but sometimes I cannot move a folder which is open only on mine, because it is locked by someone who browsed it in the past. I can see that our Windows server still thinks the folder / file is in use by someone else (in Manage open files. But when I take a look at the suspected computer it often does not have anything open, and only ejecting the network share clears it on the server. Furthermore, sometimes I can see that only one user is accessing a folder, but this user still cannot change/delete/rename this folder.
Only after he disconnects and reconnects to the server is he able to make changes. Some details about our setup:.
Windows 2008 R2 file server. All clients are MAC computer with OS X 10.9.5, but we tested on 10.10.3 and it does not solve the issue. all computers in AD and we use AD groups to manage permissions What we tried:. we tried denying users ability to take ownership of the files / change permissions. we tried it on the share that was set to Full Control for everybody, but it still happened.
we disabled.DSStore files creation on mac. we tried connecting through CIFS://. we tried disabling the preview pane in finder None of this has helped so far. Also, when this issue occurs it asks for admin password, but entering the password does not actually let you delete/rename/move the files. We are aware of ExtremeZ-IP and we were using it in the past, but it has its own issues.
I found a couple of topics about this problem online, but none of them ended with a solution. It seems that it is Apple's faulty SMB implementation. But maybe you guys have some ideas to try?
Or a solution I didn't yet manage to google?;-). This is a known issue.
![Apple Apple](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125404941/551697439.jpg)
The Finder and SMB share bug is well documented here and in many other forums, Samba released a change module vasfruit to replace vfsapple which resolved permissions, slow traversal and file listing. Microsoft aren't so fussed so haven't addressed this in 2008 or 2012. Yes Apple are meant to be supporting SMB but the real world is AFP connections are still king. You have already found the answer, Acornis Extreme Z-IP, well its now called Acronis Access Connect. Im not sure what issues you have had with it, I know in v8 there were problems with logging but these were all fixed in v9. I use this in 3 servers and in a previous life with a company that had 40,000 Macs so we think we hit every known issue and non were left outstanding.
Looks like there might be no running away from ExtremeZ-IP, so I have additional question. How do you have spotlight search / indexing set up in ExtremeZ-IP? Windows or Acronis indexing? We had some problems with that in the past, nicely summed up by this post I found: 'we just migrated 16TB of data and 300 or so users to a ExtremeZ/IP box and have had a bunch of problems, the spotlight search has a memory leak and the server starts disappearing off the network when it uses over 3GB of memory for that one process. It was faster than SMB and very nice in UAT with only 4TB of data and smaller set of users, so hopefully they fix this problem soon.' It is mostly Adobe files, there might be some Office files here and there, but 95% is Adobe. Also, the behaviour was different then what you described in your post.
Some users would connect to the share successfully, but some folders on those shares would appear empty for them. At the same time other users were able to see the contents of those folders, and affected users could also see the contents through SMB.
Restarting ExtremeZ-IP service would fix it, but it was not easy to do during working hours, because the problem did not affect everyone, so we would have people working normally through AFP. Edited Jun 2, 2015 at 15:09 UTC. Suchyy wrote: Looks like there might be no running away from ExtremeZ-IP, so I have additional question. How do you have spotlight search / indexing set up in ExtremeZ-IP? Windows or Acronis indexing? We had some problems with that in the past, nicely summed up by this post I found: 'we just migrated 16TB of data and 300 or so users to a ExtremeZ/IP box and have had a bunch of problems, the spotlight search has a memory leak and the server starts disappearing off the network when it uses over 3GB of memory for that one process.
It was faster than SMB and very nice in UAT with only 4TB of data and smaller set of users, so hopefully they fix this problem soon.' If you are in a mixed 10.9 and 10.10 environment there is no easy Spotlight answer. I battled with it for days and trying to setup dual search mechanisms never worked This isnt an Acronis issue its down to Apple changing the way Spotlight workes So he easy and free fix is this Just dropped it to all users via ARD and problem solved.Its really quick as well. Suchyy, We are experiencing the same exact scenario that you're discussing in the original post, file sharing, renaming, moving, saving, hung files in Open Files, etc.
Etc., with our Mac users, and the issue is random, never the same file, and it will happen on one file then work correctly on the same file later, also it will work great for several days, a week or so then the permission issues start coming back, then goes away. We're running 2012 Standard and OS X 10.10.3. Does forcing SMB2 solve the issue as I see in other community boards?
MrMac55 wrote: toby wells wrote: 'This isnt an Acronis issue its down to Apple changing the way Spotlight works' So he easy and free fix is this Just dropped it to all users via ARD and problem solved.Its really quick as well Toby are you saying this fixes the file permission issues, saving, renaming, moving the files as the original post is speaking about? I believe this was a reply to the OP's followup question, since that was the post Toby quoted. Suchyy wrote: Looks like there might be no running away from ExtremeZ-IP, so I have additional question. How do you have spotlight search / indexing set up in ExtremeZ-IP? Windows or Acronis indexing? We had some problems with that in the past, nicely summed up by this post I found: 'we just migrated 16TB of data and 300 or so users to a ExtremeZ/IP box and have had a bunch of problems, the spotlight search has a memory leak and the server starts disappearing off the network when it uses over 3GB of memory for that one process. It was faster than SMB and very nice in UAT with only 4TB of data and smaller set of users, so hopefully they fix this problem soon.'
Don't know if this is the root of the problem, but some are thinking and saying it's related to which View mode is selected in Finder, which locks up files such as.psd, from write access. If the file is in preview mode it locks permissions and access is denied. Maybe going to List view only and for all users accessing the file will solve the problem. I'm having my team change their view mode on all machines to list mode only to see if that solves the issue.
Supposedly, any preview mode locks permissions. Suchyy wrote: There you go, took me 15 seconds;-) Alright. This is my findings after an hour of testing; The Mac is joined to the domain. Logged onto the Mac with the local admin account.
Connected to the server share as a domain admin and everything worked as normal. Moved files, folders, renamed files, and folders, many times, in and out of root folder, up and down the folder tree structure throughout sub layers and never got prompted to enter a password. Logged onto the Mac with domain user account, connected to server as domain user and permissions break rather quickly after a few moves of files and folders. Using Default Domain User Permission level with or without full control still prompts for permission. So let's make everybody domain admins.
Problem solved.;).