TNG-stable

[Cole, Timothy D.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mike Brodbelt [SMTP:m.brodbelt at acu.ac.uk]
> Sent:	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 13:06
> To:	Samba NT Domains Mailing List
> Subject:	Re: TNG-stable
> 
> > 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.
> 
	Unfortunately, the expectation of the outside world (and as far as I
can tell this is pretty much universal) is that Samba will be able to do
precisely this, relatively soon.

	If it doesn't after a while, a lot of Unix and Samba installations
are going away, by necessity.

> > 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? 
> 
	The problem here is, simply put, that Windows services, including
Exchange, are more or less a package deal.

	If there isn't some realistic expectation of eventually being to
replace ALL services hosted on NT, including Exchange, then it's really not
worth the extra pain of continuing to maintainin NT and Unix installations
side-by-side.  It's just not.  The only good reason to keep Samba in such a
case is to facilitate migration to NT while still being able to access file
data on legacy Unix systems until such time as they are phased out.

	And that's really the only role Samba is any good for currently.
It's not a suitable migration path to Unix for the majority of users, and,
if you're correct, it never will be.

	This doesn't mean that Samba should worry about being an Exchange
server itself, but it does mean that right now is a good time to be thinking
about (and implementing!!!) the necessary hooks to allow things like a Unix
Exchange replacement to play nicely with Samba.  Keep in mind that because
of the design of much Microsoft stuff, Samba happens to be sitting on a good
portion of the functionality and managing many of the resources that a Unix
Exchange implementation must share.

	In general, Samba development as of late (particularly the past 6
months) has been severely hampered by two aspects of the Samba development
"culture":

	 1. the expectation that implementations should spring "fully formed
from the head of Zeus" in their ideal form

	 2. a refusal to make forward-looking decisions, because the future
hasn't happened yet

	This doesn't mean the development isn't getting done, and these
statements, being generalizations, are not universally true.  A lot of
significant stuff is in HEAD.  But it's been moving at a glacially slow
pace.  I will guarantee you that by the time Samba has a full NT4 domain
implementation in a _stable_ mainline samba release, NT4 domains will no
longer be relevent.

	We haven't even really started on Win2K domains, either, as far as I
know.

> > 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.
> 
> Anyone who has been reading the mailing lists should have no trouble
> understanding where things stand.
> 
	That's true.  It's been stated pretty clearly on the lists; I just
think a lot of people (users) are in denial, because Samba is their "last,
best hope".

> 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
> 
	All the docs say is that it isn't supported _yet_ (or did, last I
looked, it's admittedly been a while).  They certainly did create the
impression that it soon will be, particularly with respect to advanced
domain functionality, two years ago.  The docs and web page were my first
introduction to Samba development.

> 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.
> 
	You're right; it's a stupid expectation, and it shouldn't have ever
come to that.  People are desparate, though, and mainline Samba hasn't been
delivering.  They have nowhere else to go.

	Whinging further about this is silly too, though.  Policy is set,
development IS getting done, and it'd be better if the rest of us went on
with our lives.

	Sadly, idealists don't build bridges.