On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:44 AM Aurélien Aptel <aaptel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > This is an alias not a change to the name. We don't want to remove > > the 'cifs' names for years if there is a risk of breaking apps - but > > we might as well starting moving them now. > > Are we going to do this for every new smb version? We could also keep it > version neutral by updating "cifs" to just "smb". We could add versions if that helped make it less confusing for users, but the main motivation here is how to deal with the confusion of users being told 'do not use cifs' (the dialect, due to 20 year old security) and getting confused when we tell them to use commands with 'cifs' in them. Using 'SMB' on the other hand may be ok, except SMB (SMB1) was invented in 1984 and is not really very closely related to SMB3 and later, which share common characteristics and are highly secure (SMB3, SMB3.02 SMB3.1.1), and some admins may think of SMB = SMB1 = 'even more insecure, don't ever, ever use that on a public network' while SMB3 is highly secure. -- Thanks, Steve
