Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at
Tue Jan 26 15:17:43 GMT 1999

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Jeremy Allison wrote:

> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > 
> > i can think of 2:
> > 
> > 1) it's the way dce/rpc opengroup does it.  if it's good enough for them
> > it's good enough for me.  just please don't put in a thread library,
> > 
> This is *not* a good reason (100 million users use MS Windows, if
> it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me...). Just remember

i make a good lemming.

> but is *far* superior to DCE. ONC-RPC is used in thousands more
> projects than DCE and has been ported to platforms such as DOS
> and Novell for heavens sake. Think about the reasons for that.

no security? :)
> If you don't know the ONC RPC code then I suggest you study
> it. You won't want to go back to DCE.

aawww, i _like_ dce/rpc!

> > i am giving serious consideration to doing a proper "dce/rpc over tcp"
> > set, using the opengroup's dce code.  however, dce-1.2.2 is massive and
> > probably excessive.  the linux port took me three days to compile / set
> > up, and it still doesn't work.
> Indeed. Why do you think no-one with any sense uses DCE.

dce/rpc and its uses are two separate things.  i don't _need_ the dce-cell
stuff with its kerberos links and god knows what else but as example code
it's a start.  IF i can get it doing.

> Samba needs it to be compatible with NT - but "thus far
> and no further".

hum... hmm...  anyone else in favour or against?


More information about the samba-technical mailing list