On Sunday 11 March 2007 5:47 am, John Andersen wrote: > On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote: > > Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is > > lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. > > The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a > windows 9X share on the Linux machine.
Not so. There are some problems with host name resolution in cifs that don't occur with smbfs. I experienced them. Several people posted painful workarounds for those problems, but just sticking with smbfs is a far better solution. Avoid the cifs bleeding-edge solution for now. Some day it may be the way to go. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
