Re: [cifs-protocol] cifs client timeouts and hard/soft mounts

["Christopher R. Hertel" <crh-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>]

Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> Steve French wrote:
> :
>> Now that I have experimented with smb2,  it does seem better (and the
>> alternatives are worse)
> 
> Yeah... but they're already headed down the same road that they took with
> SMB.  Let's see where SMB2 is in 5, 10, 20 years.

I want to apologize for the above comment.  It is much more negative
sounding than I had intended when I sent it off without double-checking it.

I agree with Steve that SMB2 is much better than SMB, and better than many
other alternatives.  The improved communication with Microsoft that
third-party developers have seen over the past three years or so will, I
hope, go a long way toward keeping it clean and avoiding the build-up of
obsolescent commands and subcommands that SMB experienced.

Now, if we could just get a little momentum behind the UNIXSMB2 effort...

> I'll see what I can do to get José ready to take over for us when we're
> shipped off to the home.

I'll still do this.  We have a fresh generation coming up, and I think
that's something to encourage.

Chrudz -)-----

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh-jFlgvBokg3lg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh-zuGDro9SezXYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org