NTFS vs. Samba

Corinna Vinschen vinschen@redhat.com
Sun Aug 29 16:20:00 GMT 2004

On Aug 29 11:49, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> At 05:44 PM 8/29/2004 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Hm, no, that's getting too complicated.  Sic.  Ok, scratch the idea.
> >It won't make sense to support EA on remote drives either then.
> One could have an smbntea that works on remote FAT (?) and real
> remote NTPS but not on samba... 

Oh no, please.  Let's not expand ntea functionality.  What is that
fake good for?

> Alternatively ntea could work on all systems (local or remote)
> that support EA. That's how it used to work, didn't it?

It doesn't make sense on remote in the same manner as it doesn't make
sense to use ntsec on remote, without really checking the filesystem.
EAs could be non-writable as you described for ntsec, pre 3.0 Samba
doesn't support EA etc.  Just the missing error checking could be an
excuse to allow ntea on all systems.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list