Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted:
I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows
focused.
Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused
... But samba is...
As far as the thread in general goes, the question arises, if you're
running both samba
On 25/02/2013 13:03, Duncan wrote:
Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted:
I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows
focused.
Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused
... But samba is...
As far as the thread in general goes, the question
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Linux client invariably whinge at length about how the performance of
samba sucks.
I suspect there is more at issue than just performance.
I run both samba and nfs (though without kerberos), and have the
windows
On 02/25/2013 06:03 AM, Duncan wrote:
Eray Aslan posted on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:02:49 +0200 as excerpted:
I don't think samba will support MIT, since it's kinda windows
focused.
Ugh, no. MIT is not windows focused
... But samba is...
Actually, no. That's why I've been so excited about
Michael Mol posted on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:17:56 -0500 as excerpted:
I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are
not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both versions of
the library to be installed in one ROOT?
I would not advocate this approach. You
On 02/24/2013 10:40 PM, Duncan wrote:
Michael Mol posted on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:17:56 -0500 as excerpted:
I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are
not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both versions of
the library to be installed in one ROOT?
I
