also sprach gary ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.26.0812 +0200]:
> Forgive me ignorance. Would the same situation happens
> in say SMB/CIFS ? To the server, the authentication
> would still be whoever mount it from the client side.
If I mount a SMB/CIFS share with umask 0700, nobody but myself ca
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 11:12:04PM -0700, gary ng wrote:
> Forgive me ignorance. Would the same situation happens
> in say SMB/CIFS ? To the server, the authentication
> would still be whoever mount it from the client side.
> I don't think this is a bug(if it is at all) worth RC status.
SMB/CIFS
Forgive me ignorance. Would the same situation happens
in say SMB/CIFS ? To the server, the authentication
would still be whoever mount it from the client side.
I don't think this is a bug(if it is at all) worth RC status.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Mak
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 02:40:19AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.26.0109 +0200]:
> > Disclaimer: I don't know davfs2 and I don't use. But I disgree
> > that every file system should implement POSIX access semantics.
> > There are product
also sprach Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.26.0109 +0200]:
> Disclaimer: I don't know davfs2 and I don't use. But I disgree
> that every file system should implement POSIX access semantics.
> There are production class systems that don't, e.g. the Andrew
> file system. And as Coda,
Hi,
Disclaimer: I don't know davfs2 and I don't use. But I disgree that every
file system should implement POSIX access semantics. There are production
class systems that don't, e.g. the Andrew file system. And as Coda, which
according to the package description is used as the backend, is a
descand
6 matches
Mail list logo
