On Tuesday 13 March 2007 06:37:48 am Dan Winship wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 00:01 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote: > > On 3/12/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > smbfs and cifs are file systems that allow your Linux box to > > > MOUNT a share published by a samab server or a windows > > > box. (perhaps to do a backup or some such) > > > > ahh .. ok, perfect. > > > > So the appropriate comparison is NOT samba vs cifs, but rather smbfs > > vs cifs. Both are client protocols/virtual file system > > implementations. > > > > So, from google reading, cifs was apparently microsofts addition to > > the original SMB file system spec ... and now, it is a somewhat newer > > vfs that can exist along side of or instead of smbfs. Theoretically it > > offers, newer/better/fancier services/access to remote SAMBA provided > > storage. > > > > About right? > > Yes and no. "SMB" was the original name, "CIFS" is Microsoft's later > re-branding of it, but MS was extending SMB long before they renamed it, > and there isn't really any useful distinction you can make between the > two names.
Yes. Here are some good articles on the subject for your refrence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block http://samba.org/cifs/docs/smb-history.html http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-heizer-cifs-v1-spec-00 Basically we Linux users just need to get access.... :) -- kai Free Compean and Ramos http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
