>>>>https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-to-disable-smbv1-in-windows-starting-this-fall/
>>>>> Starting this fall, with the public launch of the next major Windows 10 update — codenamed Redstone 3 — Microsoft plans to disable SMBv1 in most versions of the Windows operating systems.
>>>>
>>>>Hrm.... this might put a spanner in the works for anybody relying on fallback to SMBv1 to resolve networking issues (e.g. occasional problems encountered when trying to have shared DBFs on network).
>>>
>>>Or file-based anything else (bTrieve, Access...). Just a thought: how does this affect other Samba connections, namely what if the file server is a linux box?
>>
>>Haven't tested, but it looks like various 2+ versions of SMB are supported by Samba: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/SMB3_kernel_status
>
>That should be so. The question is whether the bug exists in that scenario as well.

My most recent understanding is the SMB2 bug for file-based databases like VFP, Access et al is due to client-side performance optimizations within Windows. Some users have reported the problem is "fixed" by certain Registry settings changes on workstations (not required on the file servers, unless they also run those applications locally).

As far as I know, those registry hacks have only been tested on all-Windows networks i.e. those with genuine Windows server backends (or workstations acting as servers on very small networks). If the workstations remain hacked Windows boxen but the backend server is switched to Samba, as I see it there are 3 possible outcomes:

1. Situation worse. The Samba server does not fully or properly emulate all of the protocol functions required by VFP networking. New bugs may be present

2. Situation the same. Samba emulation of Windows SMB2 is, for VFP's intents and purposes, complete and bug-free

3. Situation better. Samba team heard the screams of the VFP community and fixed the bug(s) that MS doesn't want to, so VFP networking works properly even without the registry hacks. Or it could be that Samba doesn't implement optional performance optimizations that require co-operation between client and server; if those cause problems in the MS implementation, their absence in Samba means they can't cause trouble there

In a nutshell, the answer is the usual one: "It depends" ;)