NTFS vs. Samba
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