SMBSH vs CIFS/SMB FS type
wstuart at hae.com
Thu Jul 8 19:26:09 GMT 1999
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
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
Sami Cokar wrote:
> 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.
William Stuart (wstuart at hae.com)
My email address, wstuart at hae.com, is (C) Copyright 1999 William
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)
More information about the samba