On Tuesday 13 March 2007 9:37 am, Dan Winship wrote: > > The distinction you *can* make is between "smbfs", which is an old, > unmaintained and partly-broken SMB/CIFS client kernel module for Linux, > and "cifs", which is a newer, actively-developed SMB/CIFS client kernel > module for Linux. The fact that one has "smb" in its name and the other > has "cifs" in its name isn't really all that relevant. The point is just > that they're two separate codebases, and SUSE used to ship smbfs, but > doesn't any more (because cifs is maintained and smbfs isn't, so bugs > reported against smbfs will never get fixed, while bugs against cifs > will).
So the choice is between an older, unmaintained client kernel that will continue to work in contexts where it worked previously and a newer client kernel that is not completely developed but is being actively maintained and improved. If that's the case, then the sensible path is to use smbfs for now and switch to cifs whenever it becomes interchangeable with smbfs for whatever one is doing. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
