Gerald (Jerry) Carter
jerry at samba.org
Mon May 7 15:44:57 GMT 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> On 2007/05/07 13:46 (GMT+0100) John G Walker apparently typed:
>> On Thu, 03 May 2007 18:24:19 -0400 Felix Miata <mrmazda at ij.net> wrote:
>>> SUSE wants you to use cifs instead of smbfs,
>> So why is SuSE (or Novell) telling me what I should or shouldn't use?
>> In any case, this is a bout the world I live in, not about their or my
> I think SUSE is saying the same thing as other distros. They
> prefer to give you maintained but dysfunctional CIFS over
> functional but unmaintained networking support. NAICT,
> the kernel developers are the root of the problem, not Novell.
No personal offense intended here, but ...
This entire smbfs vs. cifs ongoing discussion is not helpful.
And frankly, it is just a little silly. Old code goes away
and is replaced by new code. Are you willing to maintain
the smbfs code? No? Neither was anyone else. So it's not
kernel developers that are the problem. But simply disinterest
or lack of time from the community of people using and/or
developing kernel code.
And btw...If Novell had wanted to maintain smbfs.kko, they
could have. But no linux vendor or developer volunteered to
take it up (at least none that actually followed through).
It's easy to pitch rocks at the people doing the work.
But please at least get the facts straight before tossing
your comments into the ring. cifs.ko is the the replacement
for smbfs.ko. End-of-story.
If you have bugs, then please file them at https://bugzilla.samba.org/
under the "CIFS VFS" component. Tell Steve French about them.
The smbfs code was good in its time but has long since suffered
from bit rot.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the samba