Quoting Jay Ts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My experience here is that smbfs isn't perfect, but works pretty > well, and I *really* like it! Without smbfs, I end up having to > run to the Windows system to transfer files. (Sorry, but smbclient > just doesn't "do it" for me. It works, but is really inconvenient.)
Production networks should use NFS for UNIX clients. NFS peacefully co-exists with Samba just fine. I have been using it on both Solaris and Linux for over 6 years. Of course, I have always supported production engineering environments -- and need network filesystem access to be a little more "mission critical" than something for just "basic file transfers." Which brings me to my "rule of thumb" ... _Always_ use the native protocol of the client. For a UNIX client, use NFS. Otherwise expect case and codepage issues (let alone it makes it much nicer for home directory mounts and the automounter ;-). For a Windows client, use SMB. Otherwise expect Windows fits. ;-P For a [pre-X] Mac client, use Ethertalk. Otherwise expect special file fits. And so forth ... If your server platform doesn't have a service that supports a protocol (or does a poor job *COUGH*NFS on NT*COUGH*), don't use that platform as a server. ;-P -- Bryan P.S. Please no "NFS is insecure" comments being that CIFS "password equivalent" exchange is just as bad. ;-P P.P.S. With that said, Kerberos+OpenAFS is always a nice "universal" network filesystem as well. -- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. Contact Info: http://thebs.org A+/i-Net+/Linux+/Network+/Server+ CCNA CIWA CNA SCSA/SCWSE/SCNA --------------------------------------------------------------- limit guilt = { psychopath, remorse->0 innocent } -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba