 | | Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been) —Mike Stanley
| | | | (...) Wouldn't surprise me. (...) Would surprise me. Samba blows. Sorry, but it does. Touching it with 95/98, which, unfortunately, is what a ton of places use, is a slow painful joke. Touching it with NT is slightly better, but still slow and (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been) —Jasper Janssen
| | | | | (...) The question is, how does it's blowiness relate to the negative-mass white hole that is NT SMB serving? Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: KDE/new Redhat install (was Re: Has anyone ever been) —Mike Stanley
| | | | | (...) Well, not sure. But in *my* admittedly limited Linux/Samba experience trying to introduce Samba as an alternative to NT for file serving is a joke. File copies went from seconds to minutes on 95/98, and at increased dramatically even when (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | |
