[ubuntu-users] Confused over CIFS
shizzlecash at gmail.com
Mon Jan 12 22:02:21 UTC 2009
On Jan 11, 2009, at 10:50 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Christopher Chan wrote:
>>> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>>> Preston Kutzner wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 11, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>>>>> It appears smbmount/mount.smbfs is actually just a thin wrapper
>>>>>> mount.cifs. Can you give a reason to use one over the other?
>>>>> This, in particular. SMBFS is deprecated and unsupported by the
>>>> The mount.smbfs in Ubuntu is just a wrapper over mount.cifs.
>>>> They are
>>>> not separate implementations, just separate interfaces.
>>> Oh yes they are.
>> I don't think you're listening. If you look at the /sbin/mount.smbfs
>> /in Ubuntu/ (8.04 to be specific), it is a wrapper around mount.cifs.
> I guess we are both not then. You cannot really say that mount.smbfs
> a separate interface since smbfs and cifs do not share the same list
> options nor supported the same features. It being a wrapper around
> mount.cifs yes although I personally think that they should have just
> made it say: "smbfs is no longer available, please use cifs."
And hence the point of my original statement about using 'mount' and
just specifying the filesystem type as an argument. Mount then
executes the correct mount.XXXX command from there. "One command to
rule them all", in other words. To support this statement, here's a
quote directly from the smbmount man page:
"smbmount mounts a Linux SMB filesystem. It is usually invoked as
mount.smbfs by the mount(8) command when using the "-t smbfs" option.
This command only works in Linux, and the kernel must support the
smbfs filesystem. "
Since mount calls the mount.smbfs command anyhow, why not just use
'mount'. That way you only have to memorize one command. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the ubuntu-users