SYSKEY2. Request For Comments

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 02:31:45AM +1100, Matthew Keller wrote:
> jeremy at varesearch.com wrote:
> > IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO FIX THESE PROTOCOLS !!!!!!

> 	Not to start a flame war, but isn't Samba all about "fixing" NT? Making
> it better and open? I agree that I think energies are better focused
> elsewhere (at the much-anticipated, much-requested, much-needed PDC
> code, IMHO), but I think that "fixing" things is good, and a part of
> what this project is about. 

	Actually...  No...  These are different issues.  Jeremy's remark
was that it's not our job to fix these protocols.  That is absolutely
correct.  But that is NOT the same thing as "fixing NT", which is also
not our job, either.

	There are three issues here.

	Windows systems (clients, servers, NT, and other)
	The protocols (SMB, Netbios, CIFS)
	Non-windows systems (clients and servers) [us]

	Our goals are to provide a superior server and a more open server
on Unix.  That is NOT fixing NT.  It's replacing it.  We're not making
NT better, we're giving the end user something better.  We're not making
NT more open (outside of force MS to open up more) we providing a more
open alternative.  We don't want to fix NT, we want to make it irrelevant.

	If we are to interoperate with existing Windows systems (our goal)
WE inherently can not "fix" the protocols.  We have to USE the protocols.
In some cases, we have to be bug-for-bug, hole-for-hole, compatible over
these protocols.  If we DON'T then we don't interoperate with the other
Windows systems out there.  Then, we are the ones who are broken.  Not
the Windows systems and not the protocols (much as it may feel good to
take the "moral high ground" and say they're busted) we are broken
simply because we failed in our goal.

	We are trying to develop and provide a server on non-Windows
systems which is superior to the Windows equivalent.  We can't do that
by breaking existing interoperability.  That means we can't "fix" what
we perceive to be broken protocols.  We largely play the hand that is
dealt us in the protcol arena.  We may barely get away with a few minor
enhancements to the protocols, if we are real careful, but that's not
our main goal, either.

	Our main goal is not to do anything with the Windows systems other
than interoperate with them.  We aren't changing Windows NT at all.  We
aren't changing Windows 95/98 at all.  Ok...  Maybe we are changing them
by uncovering bugs that Microsoft then has to go fix.  But we aren't the
ones doing to fixing.

	This may sound like a lot of semantics, but the difference is
crucial.

> 	Again, I don't pretend to know/understand/care about the politics
> involved with code branches and official releases and the like, but I
> think this attitude is a Bad Thing (tm). Perhaps you should direct such
> negativity directly towards the target, instead of at the list in the
> future, as I'm sure I'm not the only one who applauds the work Luke does
> for NOT-political reasons.

> -- 

>           - Matthew Keller -
>        Lead Programmer/Analyst
>   Distributed Computing and Telemedia
> State University of New York at Potsdam

> Web: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/
> PGP: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/crypto/

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (770) 331-2437   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!