Re: SMBFS: Question...

Pal-Kristian Engstad (engstad@intermetrics.com)
Mon, 03 Aug 1998 13:25:16 -0400


Bill Hawes wrote:
>
> The work needed to negotiate and maintain an SMB connection is fairly complex
> and is already well handled by the samba package. It doesn't make sense to
> duplicate this in the kernel, both from the standpoint of kernel bloat and
> extra maintenance.

I agree; it does make sense.

> I agree that the smbmount package needs some more work, but there's no point in
> blaming the samba team for decisions made with regard to smbfs. The mount
> utility could be easily extended to call the smbmount program with the
> appropriate arguments, making the mount seamless from the user's standpoint.

I'm sorry if I blamed the Samba team. They've done a great job,
especially
on the server side. However, when introducing user problems like this -
they
have to be blamed.

I easily volunteer to fix some of the problems.

PKE.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html