I have used the terms samba and cifs as essentially interchangeable.
However lately on the list I have seen postings that discuss cifs as
being "not fully baked" despite that SUSE has shifted to it ...
I've done some googling, but the sheer volume of site having to do
with these topics is over-wh
On Monday 12 March 2007, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> Can someone provide me a quick high-level description of the
> distinguishing characteristics?
>
Samba is a service that allows you to PUBLISH shares for other
computers to mount.
smbfs and cifs are file systems that allow your Linux box to
MOUNT
On 3/12/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Samba is a service that allows you to PUBLISH shares for other
computers to mount.
smbfs and cifs are file systems that allow your Linux box to
MOUNT a share published by a samab server or a windows
box. (perhaps to do a backup or some such)
On Monday 12 March 2007, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> On 3/12/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Samba is a service that allows you to PUBLISH shares for other
> > computers to mount.
> >
> > smbfs and cifs are file systems that allow your Linux box to
> > MOUNT a share published by a s
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 00:01 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> On 3/12/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > smbfs and cifs are file systems that allow your Linux box to
> > MOUNT a share published by a samab server or a windows
> > box. (perhaps to do a backup or some such)
>
> ahh .. ok,
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 06:37:48 am Dan Winship wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 00:01 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> > On 3/12/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > smbfs and cifs are file systems that allow your Linux box to
> > > MOUNT a share published by a samab server or a windows
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 fa
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
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 14:19, Paul Abrahams wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:00:03PM -1000, kanenas wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 14:19, Paul Abrahams wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 22:49 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> I have used the terms samba and cifs as essentially interchangeable.
> However lately on the list I have seen postings that discuss cifs as
> being "not fully baked" despite that SUSE has shifted to it ...
>
> I've done some googling, but
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, kanenas wrote:
> Someone at novel must have been able to predict or even after the fact see
> that removing smbfs AND usbfs support from the kernel is bound to lead into
> at least some 10.2 sales losses. The fact that a recompile is required is
> guarranteed to turn so
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> "sales losses" are quite difficult for a product that is mostly downloaded.
>
> The next 10.2 kernel update will include USBFS again btw.
Cool, use support returns for Vmware. How soon?
--
_
John Andersen
* John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [03-15-07 01:10]:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > "sales losses" are quite difficult for a product that is mostly downloaded.
> >
> > The next 10.2 kernel update will include USBFS again btw.
>
> Cool, use support returns for Vmware. Ho
John Andersen wrote:
But Open Source should not have these problems.
That's why its open. Anybody can pick it up and maintain
it.
It still has the advantage that there isn't abandonware and
cemeteryware, i.e. products that are dead /and/ buried. These projects
can be picked up, whilst cl
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:05:26 am Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > Someone at novel must have been able to predict or even after the fact
> > see that removing smbfs AND usbfs support from the kernel is bound to
> > lead into at least some 10.2 sales losses. The fact that a recompile is
> > require
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 14:45, Kai Ponte wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:05:26 am Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > > Someone at novel must have been able to predict or even after the fact
> > > see that removing smbfs AND usbfs support from the kernel is bound to
> > > lead into at least some
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:21:03 pm Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 14:45, Kai Ponte wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:05:26 am Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > > > Someone at novel must have been able to predict or even after the
> > > > fact see that removing smbfs AND u
18 matches
Mail list logo
