Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at switchboard.net
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,
> > PLEEEAASE!
> 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