On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:49:47 -0800 (PST) "Bryan J. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just to back up your comment... I know those (extremely > > experienced) sysadms who will *always* use it in preference to nfs. > > First off, why do people talk "NFS v. SMB" such as "in preference"? > They are _complementary_, not mutually exclusive, including > kernel-level locking. To state such is to only show ignorance of > this fact. In a situation where both products will provide the same functionality, one is used *in preference* to the other. That's what the word means. In this case, samba can provide file sharing services to far more clients than NFS, so is functionally (not technically!) a superset of it. And, because it grew up having learned the lessons of the early versions NFS, people who suffered greatly through them are ( with reason IMHO - remember what it was like 15 years ago??? ) biased against it. Stop jumping down everyone's throats. Do you think your .sig allows you to do that? Steve _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
