SMBSH vs CIFS/SMB FS type

[Sami Cokar]

Hello,

you are saying we can't do:

  win server -> CIFS share -> unix mount point

when we can do:

  unix FileSystem -> A -> export via CIFS -> win client

where A translates from a native Unix FS to CIFS and by its nature is very
platform dependant yet it ( samba ) can be portable?

or is it more difficult to do?

To me, a SMB/CIFS file type for unix seems to be a more 'native' unix style
solution for file systems.

In my situation, & I beleive a few others, Linux isn't the solution being
used.

Thanx for the feedback.

___________________________________________________________________
Sami Cokar, B.Sc. MCSE       scokar at gmacalgary.com
GMA International Ltd        V: (403)-261-4025  F: (403)-263-6493



> From: samba at samba.org [mailto:samba at samba.org]On Behalf Of William Stuart
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 11:16 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA
> Subject: Re: SMBSH vs CIFS/SMB FS type
>
> Sami Cokar wrote:
> >
> > Samba Team:
> >    Instead of having 'smbsh', what are the drawbacks of developing a
> > CIFS/SMB filesytem type that you can mount using "mount -F smb/cifs
> > NTSERVER:/sharename /mntpoint"?
> >
> > Thanx.
>
>
> in a word...portability...
>
> This is available for Linux....see smbmount.
>