[Samba] 3.6.0 winbind issues

[Linda Walsh]

..Michael Wood wrote:
> Personally, reading through and replying to a message like this takes
> me a lot of time.  As I said I can't speak for the Samba developers,
> but perhaps trying to keep your messages shorter will produce better
> responses?
>   
---
    In some cases, certainly, in other cases, doing so would only
require more questions about details I'd left out and, in some cases,
annoyance that I hadn't included such in the initial report.  
Thus I tend to put in more detail, figuring that the extra few seconds
to read an addition bit of detail they didn't need, will be more than
offset by the time savings to any who actually looked at the problem
in understanding the problem and it's context -- as WAY too often,
especially in the computer world, the context is what  may allow,
enable or even cause the bug to occur. 

Generally, I've more often found that for someone looking to uncover
a problem, giving more information, on the average, is more helpful
in eventual solving or finding the core of the problem.

> Yes, as I said it depends on the circumstances.
>
> If this message has annoyed you, I apologise.
Nothing, really, bothered me until your asked the question embedded
in that statement.  That got me to wondering _why_  you might have
cause for concern that I might be annoyed at anything you said -- you
appeared to be thorough and attentive to detail, why would someone be
annoyed about that?

Thus, I began to look for the possibility of Nth-order messages conveyed
through means other than the meanings of the words themselves.

Only in looking for such did I generate possible interpretations that
some might take offense to.  However, as all such interpretations are
generated by the receiver, based not upon what was being said but upon
creative interpretation of the actual content.  It's like people hearing
meaning in songs played backwards when no such meaning or words were
actually designed into the recording. 

Such is an example of the mind's automatically looking for messages
against a background of noise.  But it's like trying to recover information
after having lost pieces of the original:  you may stumble upon the
original message,  but given the permutations, there's usually no way
to verify if the message you [re]constructed was actually the real message
or if there ever had been
(presuming there was a real message encoded in the fragment to begin with:
that is,
(i.e. it may  if they have any resemblance to the orignal  or given the 
permutations, , with enough creativity, many
false interpretations can created, and it's possible that ore often than 
not, though, such messages really are
created from the 'noise', and were not meant or actually sent by the
speaker/writer/transmitter.

ability to create (or discern), such


 that , did I realize that you'd been
thorough to details, which I had appreciate, but wondered *if*, that was
how I was supposed to have taken it -- i.e. that you expected
most people wouldn't appreciate such and if that might not be part
of that which you were subtly trying to say. 

I will consider that possibility, but, I've noted there can be an 
infinite  variety of meta messages that a receiver can impart to a 
message the actual presence of which, is less than transparent.  It is 
also the case, that
a receiver can't, _really_,  know which, if any, of such interpretations
might have been intended, and which are illusory.  Thus I usually try to
avoid meta interpretation,   as presuming that such exist, is more
likely to lead to unseemly consequences, than taking the messages at face
value, at least in the eyes of most people, though not considering
the possibility of such can be equally, though differently, disadvantageous.

Thus...more food for thought.  ;-)


Cheers,
Linda