Thom May thomas at
Tue Sep 26 16:37:03 GMT 2000

I've been very carefully avoiding this thread. there seems
*ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING POINT TO IT* except to irritate people,
and allow a certain person to whom I'm now replying to to
scatter his own (mis|pre)conceptions around without reading any
of the input from any one else apart from where it may possibly
if he twists it enough enhance his point.

This is an open source project. As everyone else has said. This
means that mostly, people work in their spare time. they do this
because they want to.

I'm now going to say exactly what everyone else has said, and hope that, because I've now sunk to the same level of rudeness as you, you might listen...

At some point around Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 10:33:28AM -0500, Karl Denninger said:
> 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.
So the guys on Samba, by your own definition, haven't done
anything wrong. They haven't misrepresented their "product" 
> 2.	Then, when people have that EXPECTATION, which *YOU* built, you
> 	then fall back on the "heh, its free and open source" line.

> 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. 
rightly and justifiably.

> That is simply
> NOT TRUE if the machines on your network are not Win95/98 clients, or if
> you use things that require Exchange!

And that is simply bullshit. We have a very happy 
system built on a Samba 2.0.7 server using NT,2K, and 9x. It works fine,
within the limitations that the documentation states. It works
entirely as advertised.

> Unfortunately, this myth persists.  It persists because the DEVELOPERS
> want it to persist.
It persists because it is *NOT* a myth.

> 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 
Ask Microsoft when the *scheduled* release date for Win2k was. Ask them when
the release date for Exchange 2k *is*. Which would you prefer...
An honest - we're working on it as fast as we can - everything is
undocumented, there is no reference implementation because
"reference" implies that you are able to use that implentation
in your own - but if people will stop throwing their egos
around on a list about *one* branch of the project whose
documentation quite clearly states "This is a branch of the
project to allow certain of our developers to investigate the
best way of implementing RPC etc. Useful code resulting from
this branch will be merged back in to the "full"
implementation."(yes, I'm paraphrasing) - response, or
unworkable/unmeatable deadlines?
And I'd be willing to put money down that you would say the
latter. And then come tearing up back onto the list at one
second past the deadline, without pausing for breath, to bitch
about the lack of product.

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list