Jeremy Allison jeremy at
Mon Sep 25 23:24:42 GMT 2000

Karl Denninger wrote:
> You're welcome to boil whatever you want, but from my perspective what I
> see here is a bunch of cats fighting.

This is unhelpful.

> There is no harm in this.  Further, he didn't have to be "offered"
> anything, since Samba is publically CVSable.  He could have told you to
> piss up a rope and done it without you (see the multiple times it was
> done with *BSD for examples)

This was not a fork based on the public CVS code tree,
this was a fork based on *secure* ssh access to the real
CVS repository. Such a fork does require privillaged access
to the CVS repository.

And don't hold up the *BSD's as an example - they are not
a good example for Open Source projects staying together.
> >   Now to the question of whether or not Samba will ever
> >   be able to act as a PDC, the answer is yes.  We are
> >   working on it.
> Timeline please.
> That, by the way, is all the people who are carping here are asking for -
> and have been now for quite a while (well over a year.)

Carping is easy. Writing code is hard. If you want PDC, help
code it. No other options are acceptible. And remember it has to be done
*professionally*. No memory leaks, no buffer overruns, full
I18N support (no ascii only code please).

The full NT RPC printing support for 2.2 has taken around 2
person years of effort. This is just *one* of the RPC subsystems.

Getting to something that "sort of" works is hard enough. Going
the rest of the way so that something like MS Exchange can use
a Samba PDC, so the BDC's can replicate with it - that's harder still.

> When the public is ignored in its requests for PDC timelines (and it has
> been) then this is what you can expect to see in response.

PDC will ship when the code is ready and working. That's the only valid
timeline possible to commit to.



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

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list