If you have a point to make that actually contributes to the conversation I'd happily answer that. I won't address, beyond here, these petty corrections.
There is no criticism in my statement that CIFS is not likely deployed in any enterprise. Indeed, I had hoped that it would be an interesting fact for anyone not intimately familiar with SMB's history.
Cannot win.
Seems like you can't lose with an argument that is "Windows AD requires SMB", which is almost tautologically true. I (obviously) agree with that since it's clearly true. So since there is no reasonable "conversation" to be had about that, then what is the harm in providing some CIFS/SMB history since we're talking about it.