Paul Abrahams wrote: > 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. >
I suspect part of the reason they switched is large file support. smbfs doesn't have it, cifs does. (I think smbfs's limit is 2 gigabytes, which isn't much these days.) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
