From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GFRUE-0004MY-8J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:19:50 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GFRUB-0004LJ-FG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:19:49 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFRUA-0004Km-EH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:19:46 -0400 Received: from [134.130.3.131] (helo=ms-dienst.rz.rwth-aachen.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16) (Exim 4.52) id 1GFRbj-0008S0-Ep for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:27:35 -0400 Received: from r220-1 (r220-1.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.3.31]) by ms-dienst.rz.rwth-aachen.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J4E009S74GWH3@ms-dienst.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:19:44 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [137.226.40.101] (pc42.xtal.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.40.101]) by relay.rwth-aachen.de (8.13.7/8.13.3/1) with ESMTP id k7M8JhlD025049 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:19:43 +0200 (MEST) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:21:35 +0200 From: Jan Marten Simons Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] windows xp under pclinuxos 2005 In-reply-to: <44EA1DEF.6070103@bellard.org> Message-id: <44EABE8F.3000303@xtal.rwth-aachen.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20060820181501.11663156090@pc42.xtal.rwth-aachen.de> <44E9D35F.4080104@xtal.rwth-aachen.de> <44EA1DEF.6070103@bellard.org> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Fabrice Bellard wrote: > Jan Marten Simons wrote: > >> I was asking for an integrated virtual FTP server (about 14 months >> ago). [snipped] > > My preference would be for an SMB server or NFS server fully > integrated in slirp. > > A fully integrated NFS server would be quite simple to implement but > it would not easily work with windows guests. > > At first glance, by looking at the smbfs code in the Linux kernel, an > SMB server compatible with Linux guests would be as easy to write as > an NFS server. But being compatible with Windows guests would be more > difficult and might lead to a rewrite of Samba ! > > Regards, > > Fabrice. I'm still thinking FTP would be a useful alternative as it's more low-level. There is hardly any OS with network capabilities with no FTP client availiable. Then the FTP server in qemu would only need to support a very basic set of features (no need for user management, either passive or active mode depending on what's easier to implement). Such a tiny server (I expect about 3k of source code) would not bloat qemu as much as reimplementing samba inside. So I think that internal SMB and NFS servers are another nice idea but FTP is still the most common protocol (esp. for 'weird' guests). With regards, Jan