SMBSH vs CIFS/SMB FS type

[William Stuart]

I don't know the specifics of why it can't be done...  I suspect it's
because it requires kernel access to do it properly (it does in
Linux)...

What I know for sure is that guys a lot smarter than me have been saying
its beyond the scope of SAMBA and IIRC "portability" was the main
reason.

William


Sami Cokar wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >

--
William Stuart (wstuart at hae.com)
My email address, wstuart at hae.com, is (C) Copyright 1999 William
Stuart...
Use of this email address is restricted.  See http://www.hae.com/cr.html
for acceptible use.  (unless your a spammer, don't worry about it)