ooops what I actually meant was "you can use mount -t smbfs for a SMB (not samba) share on a remote computer" - in other words a directory shared using the smb protocol, be it windows or unix based.
And I agree, if it is strictly between unix hosts, smb is a waste of resources, the only advantage would be if you wanted windows users to share at the same time. On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:47:14 +1200 Mike Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 09:26:35AM +1200, C Falconer wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 08:45, Nick Rout wrote: > > > you can use mount -t smbfs for a samba share on a remote computer. > > > Therefore you can also use it in /etc/fstab > > > > Just an observation... if you're mounting shares between linux/unix > > machines, use NFS. SMB is a pig of a protocol with much overhead. > > It's also like going to the bank, getting some greenbacks, going to the > local grocery store, buying with those notes, and the grocery owner going to > the bank, and changing back into NZ$. And both parties have costs of doing > that. (bank commission, etc) > > It's not a perfect analogy, but seriously, why use a Windows file sharing > protocol, when not using windows? > > Mike. > -- > Mike Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZL4TXK, IRLP Node 6184 > > "This isnt Mission Difficult Mr Hunt, this is Mission Impossible. > Difficult should be a walk in the park for you." -- MI:2 > -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
