[EyeGod]

The title pretty much says it all.

I did a quick search, but couldn't find anything on the topic, so pardon if the question has been asked before (I'm sure it has).

I'm only asking this cos I recently had some hassles, and could only share via zeroconfig and its SAMBA option on my MacBook Pro. I've since resolved my issues, and the SMB share is now up and running 100% and available again, so I was wondering if it was worth reconstructing my library and using SMB share versus sticking with zeroconfig SAMBA share that I have active at present?

Thanks!

[lloydsmart]

Basically, samba == smb.

Well, samba is the open-source implementation of smb. SMB/CIFS is the actual networking protocol. So I think you're set with what you've got.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_(software)

[Ned Scott]

Samba is a 3rd party implementation of SMB. Basically it's "generic brand" SMB. You can only use name brand SMB if you have a Microsoft OS. Everyone else has a generic brand. The names tend to be used interchangeably, so it wouldn't be entirely incorrect to just think of it as the same thing.

Sometimes shares take a while to show up in the SMB browser, but will show up in the zeroconf browser right away. I don't understand enough of the under-the-hood stuff to tell you why this happens. SMB browser or zeroconf browser won't change anything, because they're both using the same SMB. It's just two different ways to discover/browse shares.

[EyeGod]

As I thought...thanks gents!