On 10/28/21 17:05, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
I routinely use smbfs(5) to access files on Windows-based local file servers,
both for read and write.
Also, some hosters provide extra network storage (for backups etc.) available
over SMB.
Please do not remove what is not broken.
IMVVVVHO...
I *would* use it if it worked: typical case is trying to rescue a broken
system with a live USB key and needing to copy some data to a different
machine.
Given it only supports SMBv1, I more and more find it useless, as the
other side won't cope.
If it was upgraded to support a newer version of SMB protocol... but
that would be another story and it's unlikely to happen.
bye
av.
