SMBSH vs CIFS/SMB FS type
scokar at gmacalgary.com
Thu Jul 8 19:12:03 GMT 1999
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
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.
More information about the samba