Michael Lueck wrote:
I am somewhat confused...
I understand that the preferred method to mount a Samba share with a
Linux client is to use "mount -t cifs" rather than "mount -t smbfs".
I get the impression that smbfs is samba.org developed code where as
cifs is from elsewhere. Thus the point of confusion. Why is samba.org
not developing the preferred code in this case?
A sub question to that main one is a nagging thought of needing to add
the Debian / Ubuntu smbfs package to Linux client systems issuing "mount
-t cifs". If cifs really is from elsewhere, and smbfs is "bad evil", why
the interdependency?
Thanks!
If I recall correctly smbfs was deprecated in favor of cifs when cifs
was made a permanent part of the kernel in the 2.4 or 2.4-2.6 kernel.
This provided a uniform way to implement an smbfs mount through the
kernel instead or relying on package dependent smbmount.
Whether you are doing:
mount -t smbfs; or
mount -t cifs (also mount.cifs)
your are accomplishing the same thing. I used smbmount for a long time,
then cifs was made the standard and I have used cifs since then. I have
no complaints.
From man mount:
Since various versions of the smbmount program have different
calling conventions, /sbin/mount.smbfs may have to be a shell script
that sets up the desired call.
--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
