Re: samba versus nfs

2004-09-25 Thread Luis Fernando Llana Díaz
El Viernes, 24 de Septiembre de 2004 14:23, Stephen Tait escribió: > At 12:58 24/09/2004, you wrote: > >Hello, > > > >If I have a file server that has a samba server installed and is accessed by > >both linux and WinXP machines do I really need NFS installed and running? > >My understanding is that

Re: samba versus nfs

2004-09-24 Thread Tim Kelley
On Friday 24 September 2004 07:23, Stephen Tait wrote: > At 12:58 24/09/2004, you wrote: > >Hello, > > > >If I have a file server that has a samba server installed and is accessed > > by both linux and WinXP machines do I really need NFS installed and > > running? My understanding is that samba is

Re: samba versus nfs

2004-09-24 Thread Stephen Tait
At 12:58 24/09/2004, you wrote: Hello, If I have a file server that has a samba server installed and is accessed by both linux and WinXP machines do I really need NFS installed and running? My understanding is that samba is more secure than NFS and since one can mount a samba server from a linux ma

samba versus nfs

2004-09-24 Thread Lance Hoffmeyer
Hello, If I have a file server that has a samba server installed and is accessed by both linux and WinXP machines do I really need NFS installed and running? My understanding is that samba is more secure than NFS and since one can mount a samba server from a linux machine via mntsamba I am wonderi