Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 Next 132 Replies Latest reply: Jun 29, 2015 3:24 AM by Ben.Stratton-Woodward Go to original post
  • applesuper Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Of course Eduardo isn't telling us that the same forced implementation of smb that others were using is also the one apple was using until Stallman turned the tables on them with gpl 3 at which point they dropped the forced reversed engineered one and decided to get off their behinds to implement their own version... Witt the great results that we ve been witnessing from it recently...

  • CDeLorme Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I posted in this thread a few months back, and besides being shocked that we still don't have an acceptable workaround, I feel the need to express my frustration.


    Among the many alternatives provided, none are truly solutions.  My solution excludes GUI which ostracizes a large user base.  Other solutions I've seen involve sacrificing security or efficiency by using a default account or forcing the IT staff of a company to add as many new accounts to their servers as their are Mac users trying to connect.


    I still think the bug is in the OS X GUI, if it was the protocol itself then using a Terminal command shouldn't work, right?  Either way the entire reason I bought a Mac was so I wouldn't have to deal with similar shenanigans.  I just want it to function, and couldn't care less if it's using an outdated 1980's protocol model.  That would be better than not functioning.


    Getting other companies to update their protocols is great, but that should not come at the expense of the User.  Excluding a compatible SMB package is forcing their own Customers into a corner, NOT these other companies.


    It's "great" that Boxee now has support for Lion's SMB, but I'll bet it was working with Windows SMB from the start.  What are the odds of a Windows Update to patch compatibility on Windows with Lion's SMB?  I won't keep my fingers crossed.

  • applesuper Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Hear hear, once in a while in these support fora amongst the blind apologism and denialism someone puts the issue forth politely, eloquently and succinctly. Thanks.

  • Eduardo Gutierrez De O. Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    Hey, hey there. Take it easy, buddy.


    I'm neither an "apologist" nor a "denialist". I'm not saying nor implying apple The Saviour has come to deliver us from the shackles of Samba or some other nonsense you seem to imply. I'm saying changing from the old samba is a GOOD thing. It is a good thing regardless of how it affects us.


    I mentioned the iMac with all-USB very pointedly because it was a similar situation. ADB was an outdated format that kept being used because everyone used it. Dismissing it angered a lot of people but it was better for everyone in the end (not only macs, as it jumpstarted the whole USB ecosystem for all platforms).


    The Samba team decided to switch licenses in 2007. FIVE YEARS AGO. This wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision from Apple. They can't, put simply, keep including any versions of Samba newer than 3.0.2 (as in 3.2.0 is when the license changed). The effort Apple kept pouring making Samba compatible with newer versions of OS X and the quality of the 3.0.2 and all its bugs and security holes didn't help things out. In the end Apple decided to put that effort into being compatible with the newer protocol and this has been painful because it's a 1.0 version and it'll have glitches that need ironing out (so far all three Lion updates have fixed parts of the SMB implementation).


    The odds of Boxee providing support to the SMB version (not "Lion's SMB", but "Windows Vista's SMB") were pretty high, since newer versions of Samba support it (but can't be included in OS X due to license conficlits). Same with the rest of devices, who'll now decide to start updating their Samba versions as well.


    Apple was the only major player using Samba and that forced them to create an alternative when they couldn't use it any more. SMB2 is not Apple's protocol, but Microsoft's, and it's fully documented. Any glitch between Lion and Windows is product of 1.0 bugs, whereas any problem communicating between Lion and Samba is a product of a difference in SMB versions.


    Again: I'm not saying, nor implying, that Apple decided to support the newer SMB2 and drop the older SMB1 out of their kind hearts when looking out for us, users. Their actions are driven by more pedestrian reasons, obviously. If Samba hadn't decided to move to a license incompatible with OS X Apple wouldn't have switched versions (and since there're really no "alternatives" to Samba other than using Windows, they had to create their own).


    Also, please note: Lion's changes are on the SMB servers. The SMB client hasn't been Samba for years.


    I was bitten by the changes from Lion same as a lot of people, so much so that I developed a free tool called SMBUp that allows the user to install Samba and its dependencies and configure it, eliminating Apple's SMB implementation. I'm not being an apologist of anything if I myself had to hack my way into the old protocol as hundreds more. But I can see how in the larger picture moving away from SMB1 (a protocol I know and understand how limited, slow and insecure it is) to SMB2 (the only other protocol that can reliably talk to Windows) is a GOOD thing. Even if they were forced to do it.


    Get off your high horse and try not to read so much into other people's comments. I'm sorry you have been inconvenienced by Apple's decisions but don't lash out on others.

  • applesuper Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Excuse me Eduardo, you are coming here talking about people's behinds being pushed by apple and writing GOOD in capitals and I am matching your tone in response. A more moderate, and a more truthful response on your part would have warranted a more moderate response on my part. So don't project this back onto me.


    Apple opted to go for the reverse engineered (garbage as you imply) one instead of opting to cough up whatever license costs to microsoft it had to pay (I presume) or development on their own earlier, because the  open source community was offering it up to apple to use it. When the, say, questionable, gpl3 came to pass that would have apple as I see it keeping their end of their deal in the code they used, they opted to ditch it and implement a new version to go along with smb2.


    That's all good and well but apple that doesn't fit very well with your initial argument that somehow apple is doing it to motivate third party manufacturers to move along with the times, so the usb analogy falls sort imho.


    At the end of the day, apple offloaded their decisions to the end user and caused a lot of frustration to them. And and no point did they own up that teething problems with their implementation was causing people a lot of issues in daily rudimentary usage of their macs. They probably should have started implemented smb2 concurrently much earlier to avoid this. Or in any case to have had a way to revert back to 3.02 of samba if such basic funtionality as allowing a network share and searching within it could not be seemlessly implemented. Instead they have relied to a string of apologists and denialists (and I am not including you here, out of courtesy) in these fora to do their dirty work of denying that there is a problem to begin with.


    In a .3 os update when the problem doesn't seem to be fixed, and at the current growth rate and immense wealth of apple, the largest tech company in the world, they should have more decency, and grandeur to accept error and offer some apologies, because that's how they 'll gain respect. I on the other hand that connect with my many macs in my work network via smb and can't search via the finder, I am not expected at 2012 when I buy their premium products to show patience and understanding, much as I wouldn't be expected if I bought an expensive car to not be able to drive down a small country road without getting flat tires every other day. But if I turn up with my brand new mac minis, all three of them, at the apple store and tell them to stick them cause none of them can connect reliably to windows networks at work, at home, and at friend's houses, and I 've spent the last three days researching this and getting frustrated, they I will have some motor mouth employe of the month whitewashing the issue away, they will not accept responsibility, and they certainly won't accept the computer back. Cause we all know of course computers are bugggy things and we expect to get grief from them.


    But for a company with a leader that professed (and to a point was honest about it) why don't computers just work like washing machines or fridges without having to break down every other week in basic tasks, why don't they just work, now that they are the largest tech company in the world, now that tech has matured as far as it has that they should start putting their money were their mouth is. I am putting my money where my mouth is in my work, I don't go telling people when they I can't do for them one of the basic tasks that I am hired to do, sorry, just pay me though, nor that there isn't a problem to begin with.


    This protocol, that protocol, smb, samba, smb2, gpl 2, gpl 3, who cares at the end of the day, we might be geeks to care a bit about these but we are not idiots, they can't handle os development on time, they should hire more people, god knows they can afford it, I shouldn't be affording my time to fix their issues for not affording more people to do more development for the os. That's one of the reasons why the usb analogy does not work as well, cause apple circa 2000 had limited resources, and they had to make bold choices and have the foresight that they would be the right ones. Now they have the resources to not keep relying on the open source community and off load development to them, and to do some inhouse development too in such basic things as fundamental network protocols to communicate with windows, and to start on time, and not give trouble to their (very loyal indeed - at least up to now) user base because of their slowness and ineptness. And when do that to own up to it, instead of relying on the minions in the forums to rationalize the problem away.


    I have to say though in conclusion, that I appreciate your efforts in coming up with tools for this situation having said all that I've said, as well as your knowledge of the nuances of network protocols, and I accept that the discussion might have started on the wrong foot by both parts. If you accept we both said what we had to say, I want to leave it, amicably, at that.

  • CDeLorme Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Wow, did I pull a trigger or something?  This thread suddenly got intense.





    Eduardo, if your reply was to me then please know my complaint was not directed at you.  Rather, I was expressing my frustrations with Apple's latest OS and it's Client SMB implementation.



    I have been following this thread since I upgraded to Lion in August; my response was not just to your post but to every post that has occurred since that time.



    This thread has both consumer and server related posts, yours was ambiguous so I ask that you forgive me if I misinterpreted your words.





    However, there was no misinterpreting your opinion, and whatever the product I couldn't disagree more.  Forcing the average consumer to deal with missing functionality until other companies comply is a terrible business tactic.



    New functionality should be added beside existing services.  Replacing a service before it has been widely accepted is not a wise policy if you want to keep your customers.



    It also doesn't logically make sense, when Apple has established a reputation for providing a no-hassle experience.



    I agree with applesuper that any attempt to support their decision comes off sounding like an excuse.  I would also be curious to know, if the license change occurred in 2007, how did Snow Leopard in 2009 feature it?  Or are you saying it was stuck at 3.0.2 without any updates?  Even then, I would consider that better than nothing.

  • Eduardo Gutierrez De O. Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    I agree with applesuper that any attempt to support their decision comes off sounding like an excuse.  I would also be curious to know, if the license change occurred in 2007, how did Snow Leopard in 2009 feature it?  Or are you saying it was stuck at 3.0.2 without any updates?


    Being able to explain the reasoning behind an action should never be taken as an excuse. When I say that the change is "GOOD" I mean that it is so for everone in the long run. I don't say that Apple did the change to make that good (or for any reason other than commercial and risk-avoidance ones).


    Apple was stuck with the old version of Samba until it couldn't keep it any more. Every update to it was made by Apple itself to cover for security holes and bugs to that specific version, sometimes even backporting fixes from later versions (these were made mostly by James Peach, a name that gets stuck in your head, especially working at Apple).


    The change to the license meant Apple couldn't sign Samba binaries (as it would be forced to share the encryption signature, rendering the whole point moot). "Signing" is a for of simple encryption that ensures a file hasn't been tampered with and it's done for security. Since Snow Leopard it's possible to sign binaries (all App Store binaries are signed) and in Lion all apple-provided binaries are signed.


    The problem with being stuck with that older version of Samba and the way SMB and Netbios work means they couldn't have implemented SMB2 as long as that version was there. Their only two options would've been either implement an unsigned version of Samba 3.6 (which supports SMB2) or make their own replacement server(1). It's obvious which way they had to go.


    Again: I'm not saying their decision was good for us, nor that it was made thinking on the good of the community or the protocols. I'm just saying the long-term benefit of their decision (regardless of reasons) is a good ("GOOD" even) one.


    As to whether it's a good or bad business tactic neither you nor I can probably predict whether this will have the least bit of effect in their business (I'd be willing to bet it won't) but the fact that Samba was the slowest network protocol out there and that it was supposedly provided as "Windows Networking" and thus replacing it with the official "Windows Networking" protocol (SMB2) doesn't make it sound like a bad business decision. Definitively similar to USB in iMac (or losing Firewire in their own ipods, a connector they owned yet was a losing bet in the overall scheme of things).


    Apple was the only Samba player large enough to make a difference so their dropping of it should definitively kick the rest of devices, especially since Windows is supposedly also planning to drop SMB1 from Windows soon (with good reason, the protocol is a nest of snakes and wasps, a frankenstenian result of a different age, regardless of how useful it's proven).


    There's only one place where I think Apple should've done things differently: Upon upgrading it should warned users that it was dropping SMB1 support altogether (with an explanation on why or not, doesn't matter). It would at least have provided a fair warning (although web sites reported it far and wide they can't replace an official note from Apple).


    Lastly, I repeat yet again: Being able to explain their actions doesn't mean justifying them (although it does mean understanding their position, even if not shared by any of us).

    (1)"Server" because the client has been the same for years, built internally by Apple, most problems appearing in the client in Lion are related to the new netbios daemon, which replaces nmbd from Samba, which has got all-new end-user screens as well.

  • maryevey Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Unbelievable.  I've been struggling with this for 2 days now and toggling the view made the folders accessible.  Thank you so much for posting this.

  • Hibernian56 Level 1 Level 1 (15 points)

    Screen Shot 2012-04-28 at 15.52.49.png

    @ Eduardo


    Regardless of their reasons for ommision of a proper bona fida SMB process, it is INEXCUSABLE that it hasn't been fixed yet. Apple are acting so irresponsibly in dealing with this and many other issues with Lion.


    To release this pile of cat crap to unsuspecting business users who can now no longer access centralised company resources other than by utilising USB keys and the like is quite frankly shocking. We have a ridiculous scenario where we have had to set up ad-hoc folder sharing on OSX and manually place files via USB keys into these folders because we can't access out €3000+ NAS drive.


    Our NAS drive is on a FIXED IP address. So how the **** can it not see the file share? Linux can connect, android phones can connect, PC's can connect, even an old Atari ST can connect, but can the €2000+ iMacs? Can the Mac Pro's? Well, yes some of them still running 10.6 can connect, anything using 10.7 are useless.


    Pathetic, there is no other way of describing their behaviour.


    Apple, if you are listening, keep the **** away from industry, you are starting to remind me of my Windows 3.1 days. I have a new catch phrase for Apple, "It just won't work"

  • Eduardo Gutierrez De O. Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    No, no. Don't be confused. Putting aside your asterisk-ridden way of saying things I actually agree with you: Apple should not include in its OS ANY support for networks from competitors unless the network drivers are provided by said competitors.


    When Novell Netware was a more commonplace networking protocol everyone was expected to download Novell's drivers for it. And this was good, this meant support was demanded to the one that should provide it, and stupid pieces like what we're seeing were rightly shot down as the mouth frothing non sequiturs they deserve to be seen as.


    In this case, Apple has been forced out of using Samba and has had to implement their own version of the protocol. They shouldn't have, to my eyes, even attempted to do so. They did it probably because it made good business sense and they probably didn't count on the fact that Samba has made by now a monopoly of bad network implementations that, while faulty and bug-ridden, is a standard nobody else can copy without using their software. Since Samba has made all efforts to not be included in OS X they have succeeded in diverting the attention and complaints to Apple, which was part of their intended goals.


    I agree with you: Apple should NOT provide this support. It shouldn't, actually, provide support for anything other than appletalk and NFS. That way people would realize that to be compatible with Windows Networking they need to get software installed that provides the compatibility. Either install Samba by themselves or one of the excellent Windows Networking alternatives that exist out there.


    Now, feel free to keep trolling all similar threads in the discussion forums as you seem to be doing. I hope that works out for you.

  • Hibernian56 Level 1 Level 1 (15 points)

    Eduardo Gutierrez De O. wrote:


    No, no. Don't be confused. Putting aside your asterisk-ridden way of saying things I actually agree with you: Apple should not include in its OS ANY support for networks from competitors unless the network drivers are provided by said competitors.

    I'm not confused, I'm annoyed and frustrated that I have to spend my Saturday, and most likely tomorrow trying to get things working as they were before the mess that is OSX Lion entered my life.


    Oh, and its not an asterik-ridden way of saying things, its called English, I generally don't use expletives, the word that caused offence to Apple was H E L L if you can believe that!!


    I have no interest in Windows machines, our office was happily in the process of removing them entirely, if you have seen anything of Windows 8 you would probably agree that we will need to pick up the pace.


    This is my point with Apple; they just do things their way regardless of impact and if something breaks (which is usually the case) they let the users generally find work-around's until they catch up. I filed a bug report about the Internet Sharing issue and it took four months for a response, which was cryptic at best and didn't work. My SMB bug Report has not been dealt with yet.


    What's the point of beta testing if they ignore comments? They were told during beta testing of Lion that SMB was broken, but nothing was done.

    I agree with you: Apple should NOT provide this support. It shouldn't, actually, provide support for anything other than appletalk and NFS. That way people would realize that to be compatible with Windows Networking they need to get software installed that provides the compatibility. Either install Samba by themselves or one of the excellent Windows Networking alternatives that exist out there.

    I don't know about that. Most SME's can't afford dedicated sys admin's (that why I'm here on a Weekend, a rare rain free one at that!!). We want and I think pay over the ods for Apple hardware that is purportedly more reliable and "Just Works". My biggest problem with Apple hardware is its sometimes inexplicable failure to interface with third party hardware and systems.

    Now, feel free to keep trolling all similar threads in the discussion forums as you seem to be doing. I hope that works out for you.

    Dear oh dear, why is posting on multiple threads seen as trolling, I posted links to your solution on other sites, is that Trolling too? It's funny, its the first time ever I have been accused of Trolling, I'm a moderator on several forums too. But that's what happens when you question Apple.


    The above issues are why I check these threads, its not Trolling. If I or any other user that has invested many thousands of Euros, Dollars or whatever in Apple Hardware that doesn't work feel like they need to "vent" or share their pain, that's not trolling. A problem shared is a problem solved, it might also wake Apple up.


    We upgraded machines in good faith, spending good money to discover they are only partially functional due to a purposeful ommision of STANDARD networking protocols made by Apple. You spent some of your time developing a free tool to help fix THEIR mess. They have done nothing about it. How do you feel about that? I appreciate your effort, do they?


    Anyway, back to fiddling with SMBup now, thanks.

  • Hibernian56 Level 1 Level 1 (15 points)

    Double post

  • Eduardo Gutierrez De O. Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    I wasn't clear.


    I feel you're trolling not from what you're saying but from the tone and wording you choose to use to say it. You're free to do so, I'm free to interpret it this way (as it's how it looks to me).


    Of course, you being free to say it doesn't mean you're right. Clearly to me you're wrong (not to feel wronged, though, that's your right) and your "reasons" don't hold water, but I don't need to convince you of it. Nothing I say will make you think otherwise.


    I made SMBUp because a lot of people didn't understand Apple was not including Samba any more in OS X (most didn't know what Samba is) because the Samba license is not really compatible with their operating system. I was surprised both that it took them so long and that nobody had made something like SMBup before me.


    Now, I don't think Apple should've EVER put Samba in OS X. Including it gave the incorrect impression that somehow they were supposed to support a networking technology owned by Microsoft (which, by virtue of being proprietary, required using a closed-room reverse-engineered implementation to run in non-Microsoft systems).


    They should've never included it. That way the Internet would be full of "How can I connect my windows server/mediacenter/weird router with a usb drive to my mac?" tutorials, pointing to the still-current solutions of either installing Samba or purchasing one of the excellent SMB packages out there for OS X (Thursby's Dave being the most prominent one, Samba being always a worthy alternative).


    By including a software they didn't have control of they set themselves up for the day they'd need to remove it due to this license clash, and then people would've "learned" OS X is supposed to support SMB/Windows Networking (IT'S NOT, and it's ridiculous to argue that it is).


    My software (which doesn't help, to my knowledge, at mounting network drives, as it's main goal is to share them), doesn't path a screw-up by Apple but a common misconception from users, one that Apple unfortunately chose to feed by including functionality it should never have.


    So, while I understand your frustration, I feel it's misdirected, misinformed and out of line. That's my personal opinion, of course. I don't think it's a bad thing to post negative feedback in forums, but I'm free to take offense in the wording used for these complaints, as it's my belief the way of saying things matters as much as what's actually being said.

  • Hibernian56 Level 1 Level 1 (15 points)

    As clear as mud. I really hope you don't interact with humans too often.


    Anyway, we'll agree to differ, I'm done for the day 75% of the machines have been downgraded to 10.6, I will do the rest tomorrow so that my company can return to being productive on Monday.


    We lost a valuable file last week thanks to the SMB issue. You can't back up a USB stick, which two people were sharing without backing up for over a week, madness. That will cost us three - four days for two teams to redraft off paper drawings next week. My boss is like an anti-christ. Your people skills remind me of him.


    If I offended you, that's your issue not mine. Perhaps more human interaction would be good for you. I bet you're from Madrid, or is it Barcelona/? The football isn't going well is it? Maybe you need a holiday or a cat, something to stop you trolling.


    Let me make the point ONE LAST TIME:


    We have been using Mac's for years. SMB has been intergrated for years. Apple NOW decides to effectively drop support for SMB. Apple does this quietly and tells no one. Apple customers suffer and we are left to find solutions. It is effecting our productivity and therefore adding cost to our business operations.


    Do you understand now? Will I translate it for you?


    WHY ARE YOU OFFENDED? Are you a founder of Apple? Do you have shares in Apple?


    Maybe you should be part of Apple, perhaps you could then form their release policy, strip everything out of OS X, no drivers, no codecs, nothing. Let the user dowload only what he needs. Just have some pretty iOS interface, iPhoto and iTunes. Lock the user out of all system files.


    Out of line? It's Saturday, I have been in the office since 9am this morning fixing a problem that is not of my or any other Apple user's fault. I am really glad we are not in the same room.


    To sum up, stop being such a Pajero.

  • Hibernian56 Level 1 Level 1 (15 points)

    My turn now.

Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 Next