NTFS vs. Samba

Christopher Faylor me@cgf.cx
Mon Aug 30 04:04:00 GMT 2004

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 06:21:05PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>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?

In that vein, should we eliminate ntea functionality entirely?  It
creates huge files on FAT* partitions and is not required for non-FAT.

Why do we need it?


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list