NTFS vs. Samba
Pierre A. Humblet
Mon Aug 30 23:30:00 GMT 2004
At 11:35 AM 8/30/2004 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug 30 00:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 06:21:05PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Aug 29 11:49, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >> 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?
>Really, I don't know. Personally I'd be in favor of removing it (together
>with EA for symlinks on NTFS).
No objection at all. We can even remove the fs_has_ea guessing game.
More information about the Cygwin-developers