I would like to make a couple of corrections, observations - you all can jump in and correct me if I get it wrong.
SAMBA and IBM File and Print client, and server can coexist on the same machine. I have a SAMBA server running on a eComStation 2.2 beta machine with the networking stuff from WSeB also loaded and running. However I do not have Netbios over TCPIP installed. The SAMBA handles connections from MAC and Windows 7, Netbios handles all the OS/2 type machines.
Samba can also coexist with conventional LAN products on the same adapter. It's only a configuration issue by avoiding name space conflicts and simply using a few settings in smb.conf:
disable netbios = yes
smb ports = 445
For a server it would be a better idea to use different bindings to more physical NICs. This way also RFC NETBIOS via port 139 can be served by Samba for the particular interface. I would recommend at least 3 to 4 physical interfaces per server machine, plus one dedicated for maintenance tasks.
I am laboring under the assumption that Netbios is more secure than TCP/IP or Netbios over TCP/IP because Netbios cannot be routed. However since I am also running SAMBA that advantage (if it really was an advantage) doesn't exist.
It depends on the view. It's long time ago when Samba could work over NETBIOS - it was never integrated with the official releases.
You can map a remote OS2 drive via either Netbios (IBM file and print), or SAMBA, or both - even at the same time, although you will obviously have to use a different drive letter for each mapping. For example I have mapped \\server1\ddrive as q: using IBM file and Print (Netbios) and \\server1\ddrive as W: using SAMBA at the same time. (I am using a different domain name for IBM File and Print than the domain name for SAMBA - there may be another/better way but that how I have it set up.)
You're speaking here about remote directories (not remote drives). Samba cannot share remote drives. You can simply use a different Netbios name for the Samba server and keep both under the same domain.
My experience is that SAMBA transfers large files faster than IBM File Print (Netbios). But smaller transfers seem to be faster with Netbios.
It largely depends on network application's usage. Samba is optimised for simple file sharing and cannot do much more.
I have connected and transferred files fine over WiFi using Netbios with OS/2 machines. I also have an I/O Gear Ethernet to WiFi adapter that will not connect or tranfer with Netbios via WiFi but will with SAMBA.
802.3 and 802.11 use the same frame format - so it's also possible use Netbios for connections from wireless clients to wired servers. Such devices have to be configured for bridge or AP mode. Of course it works in real-world.
Configuring the WSeB networking/server components and users is MUCH easier than setting up a SAMBA server. But I believe you can make that statement about almost all Linux based software; everything and anything non-Linux is easier to setup and use than software from the Linux world.
Samba is not Linux-based. The development started on SunOS, so it was easy to port for Linux, AIX and ULTRIX. Web based configuration via SWAT or Webmin should be usable enough. Warp Server offers a different feature set so it's not directly comparable.
I don't know why a server software (Samba) is promoted here nowadays for which the most feature complete OS/2 client software (MS OS/2 LAN Manager Client 2.2) is totally outdated.