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 arises, if you're > running both samba and nfs, why? They're both network-based-filesystems > that in theory at least should have reasonably similar functionality, so > an admittedly not particularly clueful reaction is "if it hurts when you > do that, stop doing it". >
Two words: mixed environment In corporate networks it is very common to share the same backend over both smb/cifs and nfs. Windows clients can't easily deal with anything other than cifs. Linux client invariably whinge at length about how the performance of samba sucks. Solution: run both protocols, everyone wins. It only goes south when AD/Kerberos enters the mix. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
