samba development

[Sergey Shibeko]

> > In other words -- from R&D to production.
>
> that's been happening for two to three years.  the problem comes when it
> is "assessed" that those people responsible for the production releases do
> not accept the development of ideas, despite proof-of-concept bloody well
> staring at them in the face.
>
> i admit that i have not outlined _all_ of the aims behind the samba
> dce/rpc development: i am basically aiming for a portable [that means no
> threads] ms-compatible dce/rpc development environment.
>
> to that end, various "short-cuts" that have been proposed, such as the one
> by andrew tridgell yesterday on the samba-technical mailing list do not
> pull any weight.  arguments such as, "it is unlikely that" and "not
> frequently used" combined with "too complex a concept" to conclude that
> "the idea is therefore not justifiable" just do not pull any weight when
> aiming to provide the sort of functionality that a dce/rpc environment
> requires.
>
> it is somewhat unfortunate that samba is in fact "just a file and print
> server".  i have been trying to break out the dce/rpc services for some
> time.
>
> perhaps the suggestion i had of breaking out an independent source fork
> has merit.

IMHO for samba-TNG the most perspective variant of development - maximal
support PDC/BDC for nt4/w2k.
As the file/print server can be used and stable branch, and alternative TNG
is not present.

I was very much pleased with  that there is an opportunity to refuse from NT
server
and to use decisions, more convenient for me, it will be a pity if the
development by this branch will be braked.