Lørdag 10 marts 2007 15:07 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> type smbfs isn't supported by the kernel
> that's a error message that i get from
> when i launch this commad "smbmount //10.126.12.41/xxx /mnt/xxx -o
> username=xxx"
> no problem with the password ... coz im sure it is rite
>
> overall good
On Saturday 10 March 2007 06:07:37 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> type smbfs isn't supported by the kernel
> that's a error message that i get from
> when i launch this commad "smbmount //10.126.12.41/xxx /mnt/xxx -o
> username=xxx"
> no problem with the password ... coz im sure it is rite
>
> o
Kai Ponte wrote:
> I don't have 10.2 yet - and am not going at all until this is fixed - but
> I've
> read on this and other lists that SMB was somehow deleted from SUSE at that
> version and replaced with something inferior.
>
It was supposed to be replaced by cifs, which is smbfs "embraced
On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
> Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is
> lacking some functionality that's in smbfs.
The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a
windows 9X share on the Linux machine.
Mounting WinNT/2K/XP/Vista shares
Søndag 11 marts 2007 10:47 skrev John Andersen:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
> > Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is
> > lacking some functionality that's in smbfs.
>
> The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a
> windows 9X share
Søndag 11 marts 2007 11:08 skrev Verner Kjærsgaard:
> Søndag 11 marts 2007 10:47 skrev John Andersen:
>
> I use CIFS to mount a couple of SMB shares from my central file server into
> my laptop. I used to be able to run a script as an ordinary user (having
> chmod +2 some smbmount files) to accomp
On Sunday 11 March 2007, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote:
> Søndag 11 marts 2007 10:47 skrev John Andersen:
> > On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
> > > Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is
> > > lacking some functionality that's in smbfs.
> >
> > The only th
Søndag 11 marts 2007 11:27 skrev John Andersen:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote:
> > Søndag 11 marts 2007 10:47 skrev John Andersen:
> > > On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and
> > > > is lack
On 2007/03/11 00:47 (GMT-0900) John Andersen apparently typed:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
>> Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is
>> lacking some functionality that's in smbfs.
> The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a
> w
On Sunday 11 March 2007, Felix Miata wrote:
> One can mount an OS/2 share
Let it die in peace Felix.
;-)
--
_
John Andersen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2007/03/11 20:32 (GMT-0400) John Andersen apparently typed:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007, Felix Miata wrote:
>> One can mount an OS/2 share
> Let it die in peace Felix.
>;-)
Can't, because it won't. Next release is in 3rd or 4th beta, probably due
before June.
On the bright side, we'v
Mandag 12 marts 2007 00:47 skrev Felix Miata:
> On 2007/03/11 00:47 (GMT-0900) John Andersen apparently typed:
> > On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
> >> Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is
> >> lacking some functionality that's in smbfs.
> >
> > The
On Saturday 10 March 2007 10:38 pm, Kai Ponte wrote:
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 06:07:37 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > type smbfs isn't supported by the kernel
> > that's a error message that i get from
> > when i launch this commad "smbmount //10.126.12.41/xxx /mnt/xxx -o
> > username=xxx"
On Sunday 11 March 2007 5:47 am, John Andersen wrote:
> On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
> > Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is
> > lacking some functionality that's in smbfs.
>
> The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a
> windows 9X
On Monday 12 March 2007 2:22 pm, I wrote:
> Avoid the cifs bleeding-edge solution for now. Some day
> it may be the way to go.
One more thought. There's nothing to stop you from installing both cifs and
the older smbfs. You can mount cifs with the mount.cifs command. I suppose
that if it wo
On Monday 12 March 2007, Paul Abrahams wrote:
> Not so. There are some problems with host name resolution in cifs that don't
> occur with smbfs. I experienced them.
Come to mention it, I seem to have seen the same thing, and had to put
IP numbers in my cifs mount lines if fstab.
Of course, I
On Monday 12 March 2007, Paul Abrahams wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 2:22 pm, I wrote:
> > Avoid the cifs bleeding-edge solution for now. Some day
> > it may be the way to go.
>
> One more thought. There's nothing to stop you from installing both cifs and
> the older smbfs. You can mount c
On Monday 12 March 2007 9:54 pm, John Andersen wrote:
> So why the hell did Suse decide to outright DROP smbfs is they can
> co-exist? You would think they would put both in and solicit community
> feedback on which ones work better and what the problems were?
>
> Isn't that the purpose of opensu
On Monday 12 March 2007 9:54 pm, John Andersen wrote:
> So why the hell did Suse decide to outright DROP smbfs is they can
> co-exist? You would think they would put both in and solicit community
> feedback on which ones work better and what the problems were?
>
> Isn't that the purpose of opensu
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 12:12 am, James D. Parra wrote:
>
> I'm connecting to our windows' shares using names instead IP addresses
> using cifs and not experiencing any problems (Suse 9.1 -10.0).
>
> What is it that can't be done using cifs? One thing I noticed that I prefer
> using cifs over smb
Paul Abrahams wrote:
> I have hostnames on my LAN that smbfs can resolve but cifs cannot. The
> answer "use a fixed IP address" is not very satisfying if you're running
> fully dynamic DHCP.
>
Could you define what you mean by "fully dynamic DHCP"? If your DHCP
server is changing IP addre
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 8:27 pm, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
>
> Could you define what you mean by "fully dynamic DHCP"? If your DHCP
> server is changing IP addresses constantly, even if it is updating the
> DNS server, it is misconfigured. It will give out the same IP to the
> same NIC every time,
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 22:13, Paul Abrahams wrote:
> In fact I have fixed IP addresses assigned using my router's DHCP
> configuration page, but I don't like the idea of counting on that -- it just
> seems unnecessarily rigid.
Try not to think of static reservations as a rigid method of impleme
23 matches
Mail list logo
