On 02/25/2013 06:03 AM, 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...
Actually, no. That's why I've been so
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Linux client invariably whinge at length about how the performance of
> samba sucks.
I suspect there is more at issue than just performance.
I run both samba and nfs (though without kerberos), and have the
windows issues you mentioned, and
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 go
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 s
On 02/24/2013 10:40 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Michael Mol posted on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:17:56 -0500 as excerpted:
>
>>> I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are
>>> not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both versions of
>>> the library to be installed in one
Michael Mol posted on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:17:56 -0500 as excerpted:
>> I'm not following you here. 'slot' means a very specific thing. You are
>> not actually suggesting we use SLOT, you simply want both versions of
>> the library to be installed in one ROOT?
>>
>> I would not advocate this appro
