On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:00:03PM -1000, kanenas wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 14:19, Paul Abrahams wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 9:37 am, Dan Winship wrote: > > > The distinction you *can* make is between "smbfs", which is an old, > > > unmaintained and partly-broken SMB/CIFS client kernel module for Linux, > > > and "cifs", which is a newer, actively-developed SMB/CIFS client kernel > > > module for Linux. The fact that one has "smb" in its name and the other > > > has "cifs" in its name isn't really all that relevant. The point is just > > > that they're two separate codebases, and SUSE used to ship smbfs, but > > > doesn't any more (because cifs is maintained and smbfs isn't, so bugs > > > reported against smbfs will never get fixed, while bugs against cifs > > > will). > > > > So the choice is between an older, unmaintained client kernel that will > > continue to work in contexts where it worked previously and a newer client > > kernel that is not completely developed but is being actively maintained > > and improved. > > > > If that's the case, then the sensible path is to use smbfs for now and > > switch to cifs whenever it becomes interchangeable with smbfs for whatever > > one is doing. > > > > Paul > > Someone at novel must have been able to predict or even after the fact see > that removing smbfs AND usbfs support from the kernel is bound to lead into > at least some 10.2 sales losses. The fact that a recompile is required is > guarranteed to turn some customers away and both file systems are needed for > basic functionality in some major applications.
"sales losses" are quite difficult for a product that is mostly downloaded. The next 10.2 kernel update will include USBFS again btw. ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
