relationship between DCE/RPC and NT Named Pipes.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 05:29:14PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 12:49:27AM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 
> > basically, it's an incredibly powerful system, and unix
> > has ***nothing*** remotely resembling it.
> > 
> > unix doesn't even support the concept of a remote user
> > in order for a remote user to be relevant over a named pipe,
> > for pity's sake!
> 
> I'm going to regret getting into this of course.... :-).
> 
> Actually of course it does, that's what NFS does under
> the covers for example. 

... *thinks* ... yes: the only practical location in
which to do support for "remote users" is in userspace.

what i am referring to is that the POSIX api has no
support for the concept of remote users, as you know.

now... this isn't such a bad thing, ultimately, but
it _does_ leave people with the feeling that POSIX,
and all implementations of it, are somehow... lacking.

and it's also caused an awful lot of grief - for both
of us, jeremy - trying to work out the most appropriate
place to put samba / tng on the NT remote user "Map".

remember?


> It doesn't give an application
> programmer the same easy API to achieve the same thing,
> which is where Microsoft really shines (giving developers
> simple interfaces to underlying complexity).
 
 yes, they do.

> But you're mixing up concepts and implementations here,
> which is exactly what a good marketing division will
> achieve (platform X has no concept of Y, where what they
> mean is platform X has no implementation of Y that ships
> with the base OS :-).

*confused*.  which is probably why i said what i did,
originally.

l8r,

luke