m.brodbelt at acu.ac.uk
Tue Sep 26 17:05:30 GMT 2000
Karl Denninger wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 02:54:12PM +1000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > 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 :)
> 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.
If it's sold as anything, Samba is 'sold' as a fit replacement for NT4
as a file and print server. This is a claim which I for one feel the
Samba team have every right to make - I'm one of the many who use it
daily as such, and I rely on it to work.
> 2. Then, when people have that EXPECTATION, which *YOU* built, you
> then fall back on the "heh, its free and open source" line.
I've had nothing but help and support when I've needed it. Yes, there
are some unsupported features, but there has never been any pretence
about the provision of services which are not (yet) supported.
> Either you ARE something or you ARE NOT.
Yes indeed. And Samba *IS* a functional NT replacement for a very large
number of users.
> 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.
Then people are idiots. No such claim with regard to Win2k has ever been
mentioned. Samba 2.0.7 fixed up several Win2k bugs, but it is widely
known that Samba 2.0.7 will not interoperate with active directory, and
several other 2k services. It is only reasonable to expect a plug/play
replacement for Win2k file and print services in certain limited
configurations of Win2k. Anyone who pays any attention to the mailing
lists should realize this.
> NOT TRUE if the machines on your network are not Win95/98 clients, or if
My machines are NT clients. I have no problems with Samba due to this.
> you use things that require Exchange!
If you need Exchange, run it on an NT server. You can't run Exchange on
Un*x anyway, so what's the problem here?
> 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.
Samba 2.0.7 is advertised more or less as you say above. It provides
almost complete file/print functionality, partial domain control, and
incomplete MSRPC services. Discussion of other versions is irrelevant,
as they are not supposed to be for production use. There has, to my
eyes, been no false advertising.
> You should NOT rely on future support for these things, as we
And reliance on future support in software should always be tinged with
caution, even from large and well funded corporate interests. MS, have,
in their time killed many technologies that no longer suited their
purpose. Those who relied on them were in a far worse position, as they
didn't even have the code.
> 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
Anyone who has been reading the mailing lists should have no trouble
understanding where things stand. Anyone who downloads the software has
all this explained should they bother to read the documentation. These
days, there is even an entire book provided in the docs. What more is
needed? Those who don't read it have no cause for complaint when they
fall upon their own false assumptions. Those who use pre-alpha software
like TNG have no right to expect production level support for it from
the developers, who have better things to do than hand hold.
My 2p worth,
More information about the samba-ntdom