What you seem to have issue with is the linux design philosophy.
I have no issue at all with the Linux design philosphy. I’m a big fan of linux and have several linux workstations at home for the last 15 years. But NFS predates linux by decades. :)
I also have no problem with NFS as a whole. NFS has its uses, and it’s simple to use compared to CIFS.
I’m only defending my statement that I PREFER Samba over NFS because of its in-build security; security which requires a LOT of know-how to implement with NFS, and very little know-how with CIFS.
If an intruder makes it through NAT, through my IP table rules, spoofs
the WD’s IP and mounts my share, they’ll still find it squashes root and is only RO.
I’m not talking about outside-in security… I’m talking about internal security as well.
For example: I have multiple user accounts on my NAS… The different WD boxes have different accounts associated with them.
My Kids’ boxes can’t access content that’s not age appropriate, because those movies (PG 13, or R) are in separate shares that they don’t have a password for.
NFS doesn’t allow for that, since NFS doesn’t have the concept of access control per user. NFS inherently trusts that the CLIENT is policing access controls. As long as the client IP matches the access rule, it assumes that the UID/GID used by the client has whatever rights the export allows.
So, all my teenagers would have to do is change the IP address on their WD to be able to access whatever they wanted, because there’s no authentication mechanism.
In order for NFS to have the same flexibility on a WD (in CLIENT mode):
The WD would have to ask the user what UID / GID to use for all mounts.
The WD would have to be able to authenticate that UID / GID by means of a User ID and password.
The NFS server would have to be configured with the same mechanism the WD is using.
What are the chances of WD deigning to support it any time soon?
Well, I don’t know if they’d “deign” anything, as that implies that they believe NFS is undignified. :)
But, on opinion, I would guess that implementing NFS “server” support wouldn’t be very difficult, but the additional CLIENT support described above: Very unlikely.
But, to reiterate: The chances of them adding ANY NFS support to the product being discussed in this forum: Next to nil.