On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:13, Nick Rout wrote: > 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.
The other advantage is that you can set up a very much more detailed permission structure than is possible with nfs. > 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? -- -- C. S.
