TNG-stable

[Karl Denninger]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 02:54:12PM +1000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> karl, please remember that open source development is done by people who
> want to do it, and have a personal investment of time and effort in it.
> they generally own all rights to the code they develop, and develop it for
> their own benefit, under their own ethics [usually a highly developed
> sense of responsibility].
> 
> to request things of open source developers is not necessarily, therefore,
> to receive.  they have no _contractual_ obligation to fulfil requests,
> only personal, and maybe self-imposed, obligations.

Correct.

> i am not saying that you are, however to imply that a request is linked to
> a guaranteed response is taking a risk that could, as it has in the past,
> alienate the people who make such demands, very quickly.
> 
> the difference between those people and yourself, methinks, is that you're
> clearly not making a demand, you're simply pointing out a former request
> and that it has not been fulfilled.  please be careful, however.
> 
> personally, however, i disagree that there is a clear link between the
> lack of fulfilment of the request in this case [publication of PDC
> timelines] and your conclusion [what can be expected to see in response].
> 
> just thought i'd point those things out :)

Well...

The problem here is two-fold:

1.	"Selling" something (and "sell" does not mean taking money, folks)
	as being a fit replacement for a given thing, and playing all the
	hype that comes with it (granting magazine and trade rag interviews, 
	etc) when you have no intention or ability to support that thing as
	a true functional equivalent.

2.	Then, when people have that EXPECTATION, which *YOU* built, you
	then fall back on the "heh, its free and open source" line.

That's a bullshit approach.

Either you ARE something or you ARE NOT.

The problem here is that people have come to EXPECT that you can plug Samba
in as a replacement for Win2k for file and print service.  That is simply
NOT TRUE if the machines on your network are not Win95/98 clients, or if
you use things that require Exchange!

Unfortunately, this myth persists.  It persists because the DEVELOPERS
want it to persist.

This whole hullaballo could be reduced to zero by simply saying, in plain
english and with no ballyho at all:

	Samba provides SOME functionality for file and print service.  It
	is NOT a Win2k replacement, it DOES NOT provide anywhere close
	to a full set of MSRPC services, and we HAVE NO IDEA IF OR WHEN 
	IT EVER WILL.

	Specifically by inclusion but not limitation:
		It is not capable of being a PDC or BDC as defined by
			the reference implementation, Microsoft Win2k.
		It cannot host Exchange.
		Win2k machines cannot join a Samba domain AT ALL.
		MS administration tools DO NOT WORK.  AT ALL.

	We MAKE NO REPRESENTATION if, or when ANY of that functionality
	will be provided.  It MIGHT show up some time, and there is effort
	being made to make it happen, but it ALSO might NOT.

	You should NOT rely on future support for these things, as we
	categorically refuse to make any such commitment or even set
	a target date for such capabilities.

	If you need any of these capabilities either now or in any time
	frame of the future bounded by finite dates, Samba WILL NOT suit
	your needs.

That'd do it.

Why the Samba team just doesn't come out and SAY this, in plain english on
their web pages, and here on these lists, is left as an exercise for the
reader.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net	Cost-effective Consulting Solutions
http://childrens-justice.org	Working to protect children's rights