The reason we can't continue using Samba

[Jeremy Allison]

Joe Rhett wrote:
> 
> Because we're not using it as a fileserver. If I just needed File & Print,
> I can do that with NFS/LPD. 

For Windows clients ? Good luck :-). If you're using Linux/UNIX clients
then just uninstall Samba. PLEASE !!! :-)

> Are you really so dense as to believe that
> maintaining a hundred NT/98 workstations only requires file & print?

No, it requires an authentication infrastructure. Which Samba
does not yet provide. I know you want it to - so do I. But wishes
don't make code.

> -- Sorry, yes, sarcastic. But you're blinding yourself if you feel that
> file&print are the only things anyone needs to run a NT/98 environment.

Of course not. 

> AND if I have to implement a superstructure of NT servers, then why don't I
> just put the disk space on them? 

Because they are less reliable, and are more expensive.

> Therefore Samba (current) provides NOTHING
> that can assist me with our current environment.

Then don't use it. There is no "Samba mafia" out there
forcing vendors to pre-install Samba on every single box
they ship (wait a minute.. that reminds me of someone, somewhere.... :-).

> Not being confident of what you mean by the first 3 words, will this allow
> workstations to log in and retrieve their profiles?

This is nothing to do with profile support. It is a method
of allowing UNIX user/group enumeration (which is what Samba
uses).
 
> No, it isn't. You can ignore my points and be dense all you like. I really
> don't feel that the community will offer the Samba team up as a sacrifice
> if you're a month or even a quarter late. The intention is to know when you
> _intend_ to complete it.

That's not a question that has a meaningful answer. We *intend* to
complete it "when it works" and that will be "as soon as possible".
Does that help - no - of course not. Stop asking questions for which
there are no meaningful answers.

Keep downloading the "stable" code branches, and when it does what
you need, then deploy.

> Nobody bases their strategy on the specific date. But it gives us some
> reasonable measure to determine if we must find another strategy, if Samba
> isn't even intending to _attempt_ to be where it needs to be within our
> timelines.

We are *attempting* to complete as soon as possible. Keep checking 
the code to see how far we are along.

> But if you say that you can't possibly make it before September, then we
> start implementing another strategy NOW ...

I'm not making your decisions for you. *YOU* have to decide
when it meets your needs. *YOU* need to monitor the development
process, and watch the announcements - and test if it meets
your needs.

You are requesting standard vendor vapourware promises. I won't
give them to you.

Yes, it's easy to rely on these to pretend to have a strategy,
most IS departments do so - "Sorry boss, we can't deploy this
month, vendor X who promised they'd have product Y ready has
slipped by 6 months - not *my* fault".

Open Source development doesn't work this way....

This reminds me of the press coverage saying the Linux 2.4
kernel is "late" :-).

Jeremy.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
--------------------------------------------------------